South African president Jacob Zuma has been absolved of any wrongdoing in the multimillion-euro Nkandla scandal in a report prepared by a parliamentary committee comprised entirely of African National Congress MPs.
The special committee was established to consider whether Mr Zuma unduly benefited from the 246 million rand (€17.8 million) upgrades at his private Nkandla residence. It concluded in its draft report that he did not.
This runs contrary to public protector (ombudsman) Thuli Madonsela’s findings that Mr Zuma and his family had unduly benefited from several non-security feature upgrades at the house in rural KwaZulu-Natal province.
The impartiality of the parliamentary committee had been called into question before its draft report emerged on Thursday evening because it was made up of only six ANC MPs who answer to Mr Zuma, the leader of the party.
No witnesses called
Opposition parties withdrew from the process last month, saying they were concerned about the legitimacy of the process: no witnesses were called and no one was sent to visit Mr Zuma’s Nkandla homestead as part of the investigation.
Instead the committee relied on three investigations into the controversy: two by government organs and one by the public protector.
The committee also found that Mr Zuma should not have to pay back the money spent on non-security upgrades, as Ms Madonsela had recommended he should do.
Aside from genuine security features such as accommodation for security personnel, fencing and a helicopter pad, the upgrades included a visitor centre, swimming pool, cattle enclosure, chicken run and amphitheatre.
However, ANC MP Mathole Motshekga said that, without an expert assessment of the work done, it was premature to conclude the president had unduly benefited.
‘No rational basis’
“I don’t find any objective and rational basis to come to that conclusion,” he said.
The blame for the overspend was placed on the shoulders of Mr Zuma’s private architect, Minenhle Makhanya, and government officials.
Over the last few months there had also been ongoing disagreement between the public protector and government over whether Ms Madonsela’s findings were legally binding.
The committee maintained a recent high court ruling between the opposition Democratic Alliance party and a senior official with state broadcaster the SABC, proved her findings were not legally enforceable.
In that ruling judge Ashton Schippers found the “public protector is an ombud and not a court of law”.
However, he also said the state could only reject reports by the public protector on rational grounds.
Law experts have said this means Mr Zuma would have to prove that his reason for refusing to contribute to the costs of the non-security upgrades was rational before he could reject Ms Madonsela’s findings.
The special parliamentary committee meets next week to consider the final draft of its report.
