Tafelberg Short: Nkandla - The end of Zuma?. City Press

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ departments of agriculture and rural development had decided to cut ties with Zuma’s nongovernmental organisation (NGO).

      Instead, Zuma launched a new food policy called Fetsa Tlala in Kuruman in Northern Cape, run by the Department of Agriculture without the help of Masibambisane.

      At that time, Joemat-Pettersson, backtracking again, insisted her department had not given Zuma’s NGO a cent. “All departments that have funded (Masibambisane) must audit them,” she said, adding that she did not know whohad funded it.

      “If I had given them money, the first thing I would have demanded was an audit.

      “Masibambisane was never (the Department of) Agriculture’s baby,” she insisted.

      “It was more (the Department of) Rural Development,” she said. “It rolled over into Agriculture; before that it was Rural Development. Rural Development would come to my department and say ‘Mzobe says blah, blah, blah’. I would then say: ‘Who is Mzobe? He is not part of my department?’ That is not what I do.”

      Mzobe steadfastly denied the private NGO received government funding. But this was refuted by confirmation that various government entities, including the Eastern Cape government, Public Works, the IDC and the IDT, boosted Masibambisane.

      By mid 2013, Zumaville had become tangled in red tape and opposition from local residents.

      The environmental impact assessment (EIA) was turned down by the Department of Environmental Affairs. The basic assessment submitted to the department lacked a waste-management plan and approval to proceed with the project was withheld.

      In addition, consultants and officials of the Department of Rural Development had to placate Nxamalala Inkosi Vela Shange and a committee of izinduna from his traditional authority to try and break a deadlock with local people. Residents of Shange’s area made it clear they were not willing to move out of their homes. The more than 20 families say they do not want their family graves – some of which are centuries old – uprooted to make way for shops and offices.

      “We have held a meeting with Mzobe and made it clear that we don’t want a town here,” one man, who asked not to be named, said during the meeting. They were also worried that this new development would bring crime to the area.

      Meanwhile, residents of Nxamalala also said Mzobe had been “out of favour” with the president for some time. “We are not sure what the issue is, but it’s an open secret here that they are no longer on such good terms,” said one who spoke on condition of anonymity.

      By encouraging the development of Zumaville, a stone’s throw away from his already majestic compound in Nkandla, Zuma was showing a shocking inability to read public perception.

      His supporters made the emotive argument that rural development is a cornerstone of the Zuma presidency and therefore Zumaville should be encouraged rather than criticised.

      At face value, supporters of Zumaville had a point.

      An increasing number of South Africans are becoming urbanised. This leads to the increasing impoverishment of rural communities despite the discovery that the promise of cities is often false.

      Developing rural areas so they can sustain themselves as economically viable options is important and adds to the quality of life there without the alienation that comes with the displacement of those who arrive in the cities for the first time. Rural development is part of the continuum that must include the creation of new towns and cities to meet South Africa’s development and population-growth trajectory.

      However, prioritising one’s own backyard for development betrays a lack of class and statesmanship. It is shameless. He is president of the whole of South Africa, not just of the people of Nkandla.

      The probe

      In October 2012, as questions mounted about the state splurge on Nkandla, Parliament decided that the Public Works department’s report into the matter should be tabled before the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, which made it secret.

      However, Public Protector Thuli Madonsela confirmed that she would investigate the state’s spend on Nkandla. She derives powers under section 8 of the Public Protector Act. Madonsela said her office had started taking steps to investigate because of a complaint lodged with her office a few months previously. DA parliamentary leader Lindiwe Mazibuko then lodged another complaint.

      Madonsela’s probe came at a time when Zuma was campaigning to be re-elected as ANC president in December of that year. She has always been fearless in her probes of high-profile politicians, including Zuma, who she found against in 2010 for his failure to ­declare his financial interests. This probe, however, was beset with administrative pitfalls.

      “Because of our resource constraints, the investigation hasn’t gone further than contacting the presidency,” Madonsela said right at the start. “We are asking the presidency who makes what decisions and who is accountable. This involves more than just Public Works.”

      By mid 2013, in a ploy as sinister as it was cynical, Minister of State Security, Siyabonga Cwele, invoked the Minimum Information Security Standards to withhold from public scrutiny (including that of the Public Protector and the Auditor-General) its report on the “security upgrade” at President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla residence.

      A source close to Madonsela’s investigation said the Public Protector was also under pressure not to release the report publicly “because it could have far-reaching implications”, but Madonsela denied this. She told City Press through her spokesperson Kgalalelo Masibi: “The security aspect of the report has to be dealt with sensitively.”

      In November of that year, Madonsela revealed how Cabinet ministers had tried to stop her, on numerous occasions, from probing the controversial upgrades.

      “At a critical stage of the investigation into the Nkandla project, I regret to say that my office and its investigating team were frustrated, and in many instances obstructed in our efforts,” said Madonsela in her opposing affidavit filed against the state’s court application to prevent her from releasing her provisional report.

      In the affidavit, Madonsela hit back at ministers Thulas Nxesi (public works), Siyabonga Cwele (state security), Nathi Mthethwa (police), Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula (defence) and Jeff Radebe (justice) for attempting to stop the probe from the onset.

      She also contended that there was no basis to the claim by the security cluster, made up of the mentioned ministers, that the report would compromise either Zuma’s security or that of the state. The affidavit also revealed that despite numerous appeals by Madonsela to be given a copy of Public Works’ own task team probe into the construction of Nkandla – which has been kept under wraps by Minister Thulas Nxesi – she was never given a copy to help her in her investigation. Instead, Madonsela was only allowed to view the “secret” report in the presence of government officials.

      Her affidavit further revealed that Madonsela was told to suspend her probe because Auditor-General Terence Nombembe and the Special Investigating Unit were conducting similar investigations on Nkandla. But she declined the request because Nombembe informed her that he had also refused to investigate the matter and the SIU had not received any order, normally a proclamation by Zuma, for it to probe the Nkandla upgrades.

      She has also lambasted the ministers for releasing the provisional report to officials against whom she may have found in the investigation and argued that the ministers acted “unconstitutionally” by trying to dictate СКАЧАТЬ