ANC Nkandla Report: A death-blow to our democracy

13 November 2014

Note to Editors: The following speech was delivered by the Chairperson of the DA's Federal Executive, James Selfe MP during a National Assembly Debate on the Nkandla Ad Hoc Committee Report.

Honourable Speaker,

Honourable Members,

The Nkandla scandal marks a very significant point in the history of our constitutional democracy. How we, as the National Assembly, react to it will shape the future of that democracy.

We are confronted by a situation which defines so much of what is wrong with South Africa under its current government, and with Parliament with its current majority.

Between 2009 and 2011, some R246 million was spent on the Nkandla residence of the President. Some of this expenditure may have been justified, much was clearly not.

This matter was investigated by a number of institutions, including an Inter-Ministerial Task Team, the SIU and the Public Protector. All these investigations concede that irregularities occurred. Where they differ is about who was responsible for those irregularities and what needs to happen about it.

If you read all the reports of the investigations together, you will discern a pattern. This starts with "Big Man Politics", where "Number One" gets everything he wants, whether this is upgrades to his home, or allowing his pal Gupta to land at a military airbase. Number One appoints Cabinet members who jump at his command, and who get fired if they don't deliver. In the context of Nkandla, if you don't believe me, ask Geoff Doidge or Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde.

The second aspect of this pattern is cadre deployment, where civil servants are appointed, not because of their ability to do the job, but because of their loyalty to the ruling Party, or worse a faction in the ruling Party. If they don't jump at Number One's command, they too are subject to disciplinary steps. If you don't believe me, speak to Sam Mahadeo, Kennith Khanyile, General Ramlakan or Jean Rindel.

The third aspect is the deliberate conflation of the costs associated with the private upgrades to Mr Zuma's home, and the security upgrades to which Presidents are entitled, in terms of a Cabinet Memorandum of 2003. Thus Mr Zuma introduced his architect, Mr Makhanya (who was extending his private home) to Public Works, and Mr Makhanya became the principal agent for both.

How convenient! This allowed the costs associated with the private upgrades to be merged with those relating to the security upgrades. Was this coincidence? Of course not: it was part of a deliberate scheme to absolve Mr Zuma from paying for the improvements to his own home.

Exonerating Mr Zuma is what this exercise is all about. The Public Protector was asked to investigate this mess. The security ministers tried to warn her off. She persisted. Mr Zuma ignored her questions for 9 months, and then answered only 12 of the 29 questions she put to him. In her report, the Public Protector ordered Mr Zuma "with the assistance of the National Treasury and the SAPS" to find out what the costs of the improvements that did not relate to security were, and to "pay a reasonable percentage" of those costs.

Mr Zuma chose to ignore that remedial action. He did not give reasons for his refusal to do so, nor did he engage with the Public Protector, as the judgment of Justice Schippers now obliges him to do. Instead, he wrote her a condescending letter on 11 September, telling her that he had decided to let the Minister of Police (a person appointed by Mr Zuma) determine whether or not he was liable to repay anything at all.

He also suggested that she wait for the ANC study group on the Ad Hoc Committee to deliver their verdict. Surprise, surprise! The ANC cadres on that committee, in a fatuous 34 page report, argue that Mr Zuma cannot be responsible for the upgrades because the Cabinet Memorandum procedures were not followed.

Mr Zuma knew about these upgrades. He complained about the disruption they were causing. He was unhappy about the bullet-proof glass that was being installed. He was regularly briefed by the Minister and Deputy Minister of Public Works. He must have been blind and deaf not to have seen what was happening around him. And he must have known that a swimming pool, a cattle kraal, an amphitheatre and a visitor's centre could not possibly have been necessary for his safety.

So we have a President who has disrespected and disregarded the Public Protector, who has unduly benefitted from taxpayer's money, who has violated his oath of office, who has misled Parliament. And the majority party exonerates him!

We have reached a cross-roads in our democracy. The Ad Hoc Committee's Report is a whitewash and a travesty. This House has a duty to reject it. If this House chooses to accept the Report and exonerate the President, it will be dishonouring the struggle for democracy, and it will also be choosing to relegate itself to irrelevance. 

Issued by the DA, November 13 2014

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter