An independent investigation into the security upgrades undertaken at South African president Jacob Zuma’s rural home has provisionally found he received substantial personal benefits from the work done, a local newspaper has reported.
The findings of the report compiled by public protector Thuli Madonsela, which were published by the Mail and Guardian, have caused significant embarrassment to the ruling African National Congress party with general elections only a matter of months away.
Since the controversy over the 206 million rand (about €15 million) upgrade arose more than a year ago, Mr Zuma's government has repeatedly stated the improvements to his rural home in Nklandla, a village in KwaZulu-Natal province, were essential for the president's security.
As a result the upgrades were legitimately paid for by the state, it argued. The president told parliament during a debate that any work done other than the security upgrades was paid for by himself or his family members.
Swimming pool
However, Ms Madonsela found that work included in the upgrade, such as the construction of a swimming pool, visitors' centre, amphitheatre, cattle enclosure, marquee area, extensive paving, and new houses for relatives, came at "enormous cost" to the taxpayer.
Aside from recommending that Mr Zuma repay the state for the work done outside the security upgrade, she has also reportedly said he should be called to account by MPs for violating parliament's ethics codes on two different counts.
These were for failing to protect state resources, and misleading parliament by suggesting he and his family had paid for all non-security-related features.
One of the key allegations contained in the report is that Mr Zuma, who has insisted he had nothing to do with the upgrade work, personally hired the architect who drew up the plans.
It is alleged that another four firms Mr Zuma privately engaged for his own work were taken on by the Department of Public Works, which oversaw the project, without following tender procedures.
The findings derived from the investigation by the public protector have yet to be made public due to security concerns, and yesterday Ms Madonsela’s office condemned the report’s publication, saying it was unethical and unlawful to publish the document in its provisional state.
The report is provisional as the interested parties have not yet been given a chance to comment on the findings.
