Jacob Zuma won’t repay cost of ‘security upgrades’ at rural home

Instead of repaying some of the cost of controversial security upgrades to his rural home, South African president Jacob Zuma’s property is to have more safety measures installed at the taxpayers’ expense.

Police minister Nkosinathi Nhleko told parliament this week that Mr Zuma was not liable for the cost of any security upgrades to his Nklandla home in KwaZulu-Natal province, which came to nearly €20 million, as they were "in accordance with the physical security requirements".

Last year

Amphitheatre

However, the president denied any wrongdoing and maintained he would only pay money back if ordered to do so by the police minister, whose long-awaited decision was delivered to parliament on Thursday evening.

Presenting his findings, Mr Nhleko told MPs that items the public protector found to be non-security related, such as the swimming pool, animal enclosure, amphitheatre and visitor’s centre, were in fact legitimate security features.

For instance, the swimming pool was the best source of water in case of fire; the kraal (animal enclosure) was a cultural necessity that kept animals away from the security features; the visitors’ centre provided privacy for meetings; and the amphitheatre served as the family’s emergency assembly area.

Mr Nhleko also said there were upgrades recommended for the president’s residence by security practitioners which had not yet been installed, as work on them had ceased due to ongoing investigations.

Re-evaluation

“The outstanding security-related work at Nkandla [which includes motion sensors and cameras] should be funded and completed expeditiously,” he said “including the re-evaluation of the current physical security measures”.

When asked how much the extra security features would cost the taxpayer , minister for public works Thulas Nxesi said he did not know.

The main opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) said the minister’s determination was an insult to South Africans and warned it would take the matter to court if they felt a case could be made.

“The DA will not allow the president to get away with the theft of public funds. We have, therefore, referred the matter to our legal team,” a DA statement said.