A “reasonable percentage” should be 100%
9 May 2016
Yesterday the Sunday Times speculated that based on their calculations, President Zuma may only be liable to pay back as little as R1 million for the non-security upgrades to his private residence in Nkandla.
Such a low determination of what constitutes a “reasonable percentage of the reasonable costs” by the National Treasury would be an insult to hardworking South Africans who continue to suffer at the hands of an uncaring ANC government while the President lives in luxury.
In March the Constitutional Court upheld the remedial action taken by the Public Protector that President Zuma should personally pay a “reasonable percentage” of the “reasonable costs” of the upgrades to his Nkandla homestead, leaving the determination of a reasonable percentage to the National Treasury.
The DA believes that in the interest of justice, fairness and accountability the National Treasury should determine that he repay 100% of the reasonable costs, and that the latter should be determined with the assistance of independent quantity surveyors and valuators.
The DA respects the decision by the Public Protector and the Constitutional Court that the President is only liable for the reasonable cost of the upgrades to his private residence. However, in determining the reasonable percentage thereof that he must pay, the National Treasury must send a clear message to all public representatives that corruption will not be tolerated.
The fact is, the Public Protector found that President Zuma and his family improperly benefited from the measures implemented in the name of security which included non-security comforts such as the Visitors’ Centre, swimming pool, amphitheatre, cattle kraal with culvert and chicken run.
Importantly, the Public Protector in her report ‘Secure in Comfort’ stated that:“A substantial amount of public money would have been saved, had the President raised his concerns in time. By failing to do so, the President allowed or caused extensive and excessive upgrades that go beyond necessary security measures to be made to his private residence, at state expense.”
President Zuma not only failed to take action to prevent the waste of public funds during the upgrades to his private residence, but in some instances encouraged it. On 11 August 2013 the President admitted to the Public Protector that, in the case of the cattle kraal, he had requested that it be made larger and that he “was willing to reimburse the state for the cost thereof.”
In light of this we cannot accept that ordinary citizens have to carry the burden of the President’s self-serving conduct. The only reasonable thing for him to do is to personally pay back 100% of the reasonable costs of the upgrades.
The DA awaits the outcome of the Treasury determination in this regard, following the order made by the Constitutional Court. We trust that National Treasury will, in the interests of justice present their determination in a fully transparent manner.
Issued by Alf Lees, DA Shadow Deputy Minister of Finance, 9 May 2016
