The Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi, has come out in defence of the department’s plans to spend R203 million upgrading President Jacob Zuma’s private homestead in Nkandla.

Nxesi said that this was in line with the Ministerial Handbook, but when one pages through the handbook, that’s been under review for a year, one can quickly see that this is just not true.

Yesterday, Nxesi told the City Press:

I would like to state categorically that everything that has been approved and carried out at the private residence of the current president is in line with the Ministerial Handbook as far as it relates to security arrangements for private residences of the president.

When one reads the handbook’s policy on security for private residences (page 101, and the rest about residences from page 28), one learns that the amount allowed is R100 000. So it would seem that someone got their calculation wrong by R202 900 000, or R202,9 million.

Legal expert, Pierre De Vos has asked the very simple, but necessary questions:

Is it legal for the president to use public funds to upgrade his private residence? Will the Hawks be investigating what appears to be the criminal misuse of public funds, and if not, why not?

Nxesi continued to the City Press:

The merely unlawful possession of a top secret [document] is a breach of the laws … This therefore calls for an investigation to be launched to determine how the City Press illegally ended up in possession of this document.

The City Press hit back saying that the documents that they possess are unclassified, and that one “shows that Public Works approved a budget of R203 million for upgrades to Zuma’s compound,” and “another document confirms that R44 million had already been spent on “security measures”.”

The key aspect to take home here is that Nkandla is a private residence, and not designated as an official residence in addition to the president’s existing three official residences in Pretoria, Cape Town and Durban.

Continues the handbook:

Members are responsible for all costs related to the procurement, upkeep and maintenance of private residences used for official purposes.

It also says that the member would need to cover the costs above the R100 000 allocation, which would be hard for JZ, considering he’s only earned around R6 million while being in office. De Vos clears up what should happen next:

The starting point for any legal evaluation of this alleged splurge of public funds to improve the private residence of our president must be the Executive Members Ethics Act and the Code adopted to give effect to it, which binds all Cabinet members, including the president.

The Act and the Code prohibit the president from acting in a way that is inconsistent with his office, using his position to enrich himself, or acting in a way that may compromise the credibility or integrity of his office or of the government. The Code further prohibits the president from making improper use of any allowance or payment properly made to him, or to disregard the administrative rules which apply to him.

It is clear that the spending of more than R200 million on an upgrade to the private home of President Zuma would be in clear breach of these obligations and would therefore be unlawful. If the presidency fails to put a stop to this immediately, we will know that the person who took bribes from Schabir Shaik has not become any more ethical since becoming president of the country.

He also stated the obvious about an excuse the government had previously tried to use in defence of the Nkandla upgrade, that began in 2010, and that Nxesi had also tried: the National Key Points Act (an act governing assets deemed as national key points) allowed for the use of public funds to protect them, but this had to be paid from the Special Account for the Safeguarding of National Key Points, and only on instruction of the Minister of Defence.

The government could refuse to give information on security measures at Nkandla but could not use the Act to “try and hide unlawful expenditure on the upgrading of his private house through the looting of public funds”.

[Sources: M&G, PierreDeVos]