Google – AFP, Sibongile Khumalo (AFP), 19 March 2014
![]() |
A view of
the controversial homestead of South African President Jacob Zuma
in Nkandla on
January 21, 2014 (AFP/File, Marco Longari)
|
Pretoria —
South Africa's public ombudsman ruled Wednesday that some of the $23 million
taxpayer-funded improvements to President Jacob Zuma's luxurious private
residence were excessive and unlawful.
In a
scathing report issued just weeks ahead of South Africa's elections, ombudsman
Thuli Madonsela also ordered Zuma to repay part of the costs of the upgrades at
his village homestead.
"Some
of these measures can be legitimately classified as unlawful and the acts
involved constitute improper conduct and maladministration," Madonsela said.
![]() |
A view of
the controversial homestead of
South African President Jacob Zuma in
Nkandla on
January 21, 2014 (AFP, Marco
Longari)
|
Madonsela
blamed the government for the two years it took to produce the report, saying
Zuma had taken nine months to respond to her questions.
"There
is nothing political about the report, all I have done as the ombudsman is to
discharge my responsibility. And I have done that."
The
opposition Democratic Alliance said that in light of the "damning
findings" it would urgently initiate impeachment proceedings against Zuma.
The
ombudsman ordered Zuma to pay a "reasonable percentage" of the cost
of renovations not related to security at the sprawling homestead in the
southern village of Nklanda.
However the
exact amount was not disclosed and Madonsela said it would be up to the
Treasury to determine a figure.
In a terse
statement, Zuma said he would study the findings and "will communicate his
response in due course".
Renovations
at so-called "Zumaville" cost taxpayers 246 million rand ($23
million) in a project touted as a security upgrade but which included a
visitors' centre, swimming pool, an amphitheatre, private clinic and even a
chicken coop.
![]() |
South
African President Jacob Zuma speaks
during a press conference in Pretoria
on
October 14, 2013 (AFP/File, Alexander
Joe)
|
Opulence
on a grand scale
Madonsela also
ordered Zuma to "reprimand the ministers involved for the appalling manner
in which the Nkandla project was handled and state funds were abused".
Zuma is
running for re-election in the May 7 vote but his popularity has taking a
beating and he was booed at the memorial for South Africa's first black
president Nelson Mandela in December.
The vote
promises to be the toughest yet for Zuma and his ruling African National
Congress (ANC) which has won every election since the end of apartheid in 1994
by a landslide.
A survey
late last year showed that support for the ANC had dropped to 53 percent, a
slide of 10 percentage points from a year earlier.
The splurge
on the house - nestled in the verdant hills of Zuma's political stronghold --
has caused anger in a country where there is widespread poverty and where 10
million people live on welfare.
In contrast
to Zuma's luxury lifestyle, some of his rural neighbours are without
electricity or running water. Nearby residents collect water from communal taps
and streams which often run dry.
The
ombudsman said the allegation by a complainant that the Nkandla project
constitutes "opulence on a grand scale is substantiated."
![]() |
South
African Bhekekile Ndlovu closes the
gate to her parcel of land directly
opposite
the lavish residence of South African
President in Nkandla on January
22, 2014
(AFP/File, Marco Longari)
|
"The
manner in which the Nkandla project was administered and implemented gave me
the impression of a toxic concoction of a lack of leadership, a lack of control
and focused self-interest," said Madonsela
The home,
which Zuma rarely visits as he has official residences in Pretoria, Cape Town
and Durban -- also boasts its own helipad.
Madonsela
said the upgrades were by far the most expensive for a sitting head of state,
including Mandela.
Zuma last
year denied that he and his family had benefitted from the security upgrades.
But
Madonsela said "this is not true" and that Zuma had "unduly
benefited from the enormous capital investment from non-security
measures".
While
presidents and former leaders were legally entitled to reasonable security
upgrades, Madonsela said such additions as a swimming pool did not meet the
criteria.




No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.