Nkandla report: Key findings


An extract from the Nkandla report, released on 19 March, 2014, by Public Protector Thuli Madonsela.

PRETORIA - Public Protector released her report on President Jacob Zuma&39;s Nkandla residence on Wednesday. Here are her key findings. 
Implementation of the security measures failed to comply with the parameters set out in the National Key Points Act of 2010 and the Cabinet Policy of 2003.
The expenditure incurred by the State, including buildings constructed/installed by the Department of Public Works at the request of the SAPS and the Department of Defence, went beyond what was reasonably required for the President’s security, was unconscionable, excessive, and caused a misappropriation of public funds.
Failure to spend state funds prudently is a contravention of section 195 (1)(b) of the Constitution and the Public Finance Management Act. 
No evidence found that President Zuma’s brother improperly benefitted from the measures implemented.
Allegation that the excessive expenditure added substantial value to the President’s private property at the expense of the state is substantiated.
Zuma’s immediate family improperly benefitted form upgrades. The clinic on the family’s doorstep will benefit the family forever. So will the non-security comforts (swimming pool/amphitheatre). The acts and omissions that allowed this to happen constitute lawful and improper conduct and maladministration.
The conduct of the Department of Public Works leading to the failure to resolve the issue of items earmarked for the owners’ cost transparently, including the failure to report back on the swimming pool question after the 11 May 2011 meeting and the disappearance of the letter proposing an apportionment of costs, constitutes improper conduct and maladministration.
Officials of the Department of Public Works, Defence  and SAPS failed to acquaint themselves with the authorising instruments relating to the implementation of the Nkandla projects. They failed to apply their minds and adhere to the supply chain management policy framework in respect of the procurement of goods and services for the Nkandla projects. These failures constitute improper conduct and maladministration. 
Mr Makhanya’s multiple and conflicting roles as Principal Agent, the President’s Architect and procurer of subcontractors placed him in a position where the advice he gave was tainted by conflict of interest and not in the public interest, which led to cost escalation and poor performance by some contractors.
Funds were reallocated from the Inner City Regeneration and the Dolomite Risk Management Programmes of the Department of Public Works. Service delivery programmes of the department were negatively affected. This was in violation of section 237 of the Constitution and constitutes improper conduct and maladministration. 
President Zuma must pay a percentage of the costs of the non-security comfort items.
When Zuma addressed Parliament and said his family paid for the upgrades he was referring to the security upgrades and not the visitor centre, swimming pool, etc and therefore did not mislead Parliament and the public. 
President Zuma failed to apply his mind to the contents of the Declaration of his private residence as a National Key Point and failed to implement security measures at his own cost as directed by it or to approach the Minister of Police for a variation of the Delcaration.
Zuma should have asked asked questions regarding the scale, cost and affordability of the Nkandla project.
Zuma’s failure to act in protection of state resources constitutes a violation of paragraph 2 of the Executive Ethics Code and amounts to conduct that is inconsistent with his office as a member of Cabinet according to section 96 of the Constitution.

Paid Content