Zuma to pay for Nkandla upgrades

Zuma yesterday filed correspondence with the Constitutional Court which sets out his proposal to resolve the Nkandla debacle.

Public Protector Thuli Madonsela said in a 2014 report, that Zuma had “benefited unduly” from some of the upgrades that cost almost 15.3 million dollars and included a cattle enclosure and amphitheatre.

The presidency said Zuma’s offer constituted a “simple course” to comply with the remedial action ordered by Madonsela, but noted that he remained critical of aspects of the report.

“To achieve an end to the drawn-out dispute … the president proposes that the determination of the amount he is to pay should be independently and impartially determined”, a statement from the South African president office, read.

“Once the exercise has been completed and a figure determined, the president has repeatedly indicated both before this court and before Parliament that… he is willing to be bound by the outcome of a fair and objective process”.

Opposition parties have lashed out at President Jacob Zuma’s proposed decision to have the auditor-general and Finance Minister, Pravin Gordhan, determine the amount he should pay back on the R246-million security upgrades at his private Nkandla home.

The police ministry has previously defended the costs, saying the swimming pool was used for fire fighting, while the chicken run kept livestock away from the security infra-structure.

UDM leader Bantu Holomisa says Zuma’s attempt to avoid further embarrassment and ridicule by the Constitutional Court should be rejected.

“President Zuma has maintained his willingness to contribute to any increase in value to his property, objectively determined, as required by the Public Protector“, the statement read.

In a strongly worded reaction, Congress of the People (Cope) spokesperson Dennis Bloem stated that Zuma must vacate his office as he “is a president without any moral authority whatsoever”.

Chairperson of the DA’s Federal Executive, James Selfe, who is the DA’s point man on legal matters, described the manner in which Zuma was litigating [on the matter] as “extraordinary”.

“The president’s only chance would be that the Constitutional Court refuses to hear the case because it argues that this is not a case in which direct access should be granted”, de Vos added.