Nkandla private residence security upgrades: Minister of Police briefing

Meeting report

Nkandla private residence security upgrades: Minister of Police briefing
Mr J Selfe (DA) indicated that on 23 June 2015, he had tabled a submission on behalf of the DA in which it was argued that, according to the Constitution and the Public Protector Act, the findings and remedial actions of the Public Protector cannot be summarily rejected. The Public Protector report had ordered some remedial actions to occur, and this needed to be taken into consideration.

The Chairperson interrupted and said that the Committee was aware of the debate around the issue of the Public Protector. However, the Committee had already adopted a programme which clearly outlined that today’s agenda was to deal with the presentation by the Minister of Police. Time would be set aside at another point to deal with other deliberations and discussions, including the matter of the Public Protector.

Minister of Police briefing

Mr Nkosinathi Nhleko, Minister of Police, said he assumed that everyone had already read the Police Minister’s Report on security upgrades at the private residency of the President. His presentation would be based on that Report. It was important to highlight that the role of the Minister of Police was not to deal with the whole broad scope of the security upgrades at the private residence of the President.  It was important also not to forget that this presentation focused on the instruments that had been used to arrive at a certain conclusion - for example, the purpose of constructing a “firepool”. Central to this would be the work of the security expert who was able to detail everything that was required to ensure the safety of the President. The presentation would also focus specifically on the resolution that was taken by the House on 11 November 2014.  The report that had been released by the Minister of Police dealt with the items that had constituted private security and those that had not. The question of a need for security upgrades, especially a “firepool”, was established by security experts through the evaluation but the manifestation of that need required the professionals and experts.

The Department of Police (the Department) had undertaken a comprehensive review of all policies, legislation (including the National Key Points Act 102 of 1980), regulations and court judgments pertaining to the National Key Points, and all these had been taken into account. The outcomes of this review highlighted the need for the National Critical Infrastructure Protection Policy to be developed.  This policy was currently before Cabinet and would be introduced to Parliament. The Minister had been mandated, in this report today, to focus on the non-security features to the security upgrades in the private residence of the President in Nkandla.

The Minister confirmed that, as outlined on page 9 of the Public Protector's report, there were no public funds that had been used to upgrade the private residence of the President, except the questionable swimming pool, cattle kraal, chicken run and visitors' lounge and the amphitheatre. The report today would provide a careful analysis of each of these features, their purposes and the context which informed their construction.

Mr Nhleko mentioned that the security and appraisals in relation to the prestige projects were done in Nkandla and the security features requests were submitted to the Department of Public Works (DPW) and professionals. The design plans of the security upgrades were approved by relevant departments and construction phases, following a project management approach, were then approved. These phases were also subsequently followed by payments. The final security touch and sign-off was done by relevant state law enforcement agencies. Finally, the security upgrades were put into operation.   There was no record that the President or any members of his family had requested anything to be constructed, including the security features. He wanted to highlight that presidents or ministers did not determine how they should be protected and how their homes should be protected according to the minimum physical security standards. The security agencies were mandated by law to provide for the security needs and to approve such consolidated needs, plans and monitor any implementation of the plan, together with the DPW.

Discussion
Mr V Smith (ANC)indicated that the public had raised questions about the legal standing and the legitimacy of the Minister of Police’s report. It was important to know if the outstanding work that was still to be funded for the security upgrades in the private residence of the President was to be new money spent. He also expressed a concern about the need for the additional R31 million to be used for the security upgrades, despite the fact that shoddy work had already been done. He commented that it would be helpful to recover the money from the contractors that were hired.

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) asked if it was possible to get a report on the cultural experts who had been appointed, especially their views on the extension of the kraal. It was important to know if there was any particular reason why the Minister seemed to be sure today about the purpose of the 21 houses that had been built as security upgrades in the private residency of the President. Why was the swimming pool attributed to part of the the security upgrade?

Ms M Kubayi (ANC) said that the previous Ad Hoc Committee report had indicated that there was a need for the assessment of the further risks in the private residency of the President in relation to the additional costs that were still to be accommodated. She wanted to know if this assessment had already been completed? It was confusing that there was only one cost centre as there should have been at least three cost centres, so that the South African Police Services (SAPS) and the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) could be able to carry part of the cost. She questioned the logic behind the combination of all cost centres into one centre? She also wanted to know whether there was a separate cost for the chicken run and the cattle kraal that had been extended.

Mr Selfe asked that the Committee should be provided with reports of the interviews that had been conducted with key technical persons with expertise. The Minister’s Report was principally based on the SAPS security evaluation report and the DPW investigation report of 2014. He pointed out that the Committee was yet to be provided with those reports also. This was important in order to determine what the SAPS report said was necessary, and the extent to which SAPS had said it was necessary was effected in the security evaluation. He noted that page 132 of the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) report refers in great detail to what the SAPS and the SANDF required and what was actually delivered. This was also amplified in page 215 of the SIU report, which noted that the building of the tunnels with the exit and three lifts (costing an exorbitant amount of R21.1 million) and the visitors' lounge (costing R3.9 million) were not considered as part of the security upgrades.

Mr Nhleko responded that the report that he had submitted to Parliament was a 50 page report which was given to all Members and this was followed by the documentary evidence that had already been shown to the Committee. He apologised that Members were not given both the SAPS security evaluation report and DPW investigation report of 2014 as this was supposed to have been done at the end of the presentation, as this would assist the Committee in further deliberations and discussions. The Minister was only reacting to the resolution that had been adopted by Parliament. This had nothing to do with what the President had said but everything to do with the deliberations of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Minister’s report and the referrals by the previous Ad Hoc Committee. 

The question on whether there was additional funding still needed for the security upgrades at the private residence of the President was very complex and this was precisely because some of the work on the security upgrades had not been completed because of pending investigations. This matter was also made more complex by the fact that security features, in their very nature, were meant to secure but also meant not to be widely known by the general public. The security experts would still need to do an assessment in order to observe where the security of the President had been compromised. Cost for the outstanding work would only be able to be assessed after such an exercise had been completed.

He reminded the Committee that the resolution by the House was that the Minister of Police needed to do an evaluation and assessment of the effectiveness and appropriateness of the security features at Nkandla. The Minister was not mandated to do an analysis on the 21 houses that had been built at the private residence of the President. The work of the Minister was thus mainly focused on the four distinctive areas that were queried as non-security features, and therefore the Minister was required to make a determination about that, and not about other matters that were included in the SIU report.

Mr F Beukman (ANC) welcomed the assertion that there would be a comprehensive review of all policies, legislation including the National Key Points Act 102 of 1980, regulations and court judgements pertaining to the National Key Points. The previous Ad Hoc Committee had recommended that “the Cabinet must ensure greater coordination of strategic projects pertaining to the security of the President, Deputy President, former presidents and former deputy presidents”. He asked if there were points that could be included in the new Cabinet Memo for the coordination of the relevant government departments.  

Mr C Mulder (FF+) said that it was clear that the Minister of Police had rehashed the report of the Public Protector and it was impossible to get an opinion from a person who was controlled by the President and defended by the ruling party. The two people who should have been present in this meeting were the Public Protector and the Head of the SIU, as they were reasonably “uncontrollable” and had security of tenure. The Minister had just indicated that the reason to draft the report was to respond to the Ad Hoc Committee, but there was a directive from the President in the report dated 14 August 2014 that the Minister of Police had a responsibility to determine whether the President was liable to pay for the security upgrades that had been implemented in his private residence.    

Mr S Swart (ACDP) indicated that the Public Protector had made it clear that “the Minister’s report does not attempt to review the Public Protector’s report; instead it made random and adverse comments on selected aspects of the report”. It was important to know if the Minister was able to engage with the Public Protector. 

Ms L Maseko (ANC) commended the Minister for the ability to provide a calculated breakdown of the costs in the security upgrades in the private residence of the President. She asserted that the responsibility of the Minister was not to consult with the Public Protector. She also said it was confusing that there was only one cost centre as there should had been at least three cost centres, so that the SAPS and the SANDF could be able to carry the cost, and she too asked for the logic behind the combination of all cost centres into one centre? It was also confusing that the family continued to use the cattle kraal for what it was intended, despite the fact that it was identified as high security risk.

Mr Nhleko responded that the cattle kraal was considered as a high security risk because the family homestead was closer to the cattle kraal and therefore the location of the livestock was likely to interfere with the security technology such as motion detectors, and this motivated the relocation of the livestock. Whether the President had asked for the extension of the kraal was a matter for debate, but the question that should be asked was why the extension of the kraal did not take place where the family was. The site where the family kraal was located was clearly not used and this one of the reasons that there was a need to consult a cultural expert in order to determine the correct location of the kraal. The cultural expert had explained everything from the purpose of a kraal to how a kraal of a man in a polygamous relationship was positioned. It was highlighted, in the security evaluation report, that one of the critical needs that was identified was the need to have separate entrance points for livestock, main entrance and pedestrian traffic and the issue of technology infrastructure was also considered.

Mr Nhleko said that the question why there was one cost centre instead of three, to enable the SAPS and the SANDF to carry the cost, still needed to be established whereafter it would be clarified to the general public.

Mr Nhleko noted that the Department had already indicated that it had undertaken a comprehensive review of all policies, legislation including the National Key Points Act 102 of 1980, regulations and court judgements pertaining to the National Key Points and all these had been taken into account. The issue of the Cabinet Memorandum of 2003 and the Ministerial Handbook would be handled by Cabinet and then by different portfolio committees. The security upgrades that were affecting the President, the Deputy President and the former presidents and the deputy presidents was handled by the Cabinet Memorandum of 2003 and not by the Ministerial Handbook. It was important to highlight that the Cabinet Memorandum of 2003, unlike the Ministerial Handbook, did not have prescribed limits on the amount of money to be spent on the security upgrades. The security upgrade at the private residence of the President was a huge project, and it had its own complications from a project management point of view, and the interpretations and translations of common things meant different things. For example, there were cases where contractors on the ground were not cleared from a security point of view and this in itself introduced its own kind of complications.

The Minister said he was only responding to the resolution that had been taken by Parliament. The debate on whether the Public Protector should have been invited to appear before the Committee was a matter for further debate and discussion by the Members of the Committee. He admitted that he was appointed by the President and served as part of the Executive, but this did not mean he should be biased towards the President, and he pointed out that the Public Protector was also appointed by the President.  There was a convergence of the investigative reports, including those of the Public Protector, SIU and the task-team of the DPW which was appointed in 2012. The points in these reports raising questions were on the non-security features to the security upgrades. Members seemed to be suggesting that the Minister should have focused on the whole spectrum of issues, and this was a contradiction, as most Members had accused the Minister of reviewing the report of the Public Protector.

Mr Nhleko then urged Members who were disputing that the swimming pool and the extension of the cattle kraal were not part of the security features to show evidence of such statements. The security experts conducted assessments and they were trained to review the security circumstances in a broader context and therefore come to a particular conclusion, and this was the matter that was to be taken into consideration.

He confirmed that he had not engaged with the Public Protector, as the resolution by Parliament did not arrive at such determination.

Mr Nhleko said that the visit to the private residence of the President could assist Members to see that the amphitheatre was essentially to be used as a soil retention wall, and this was again built for security reasons. It was impossible for the Minister to be initially involved in the Ad Hoc Committee until the resolution that had been taken by Parliament. The President involved the Minister of Police precisely because of the National Key Points Act. 

Mr N Singh (IFP) wanted to know whether the justification of the security and the non-security features that was contained in the Minister’s report was not an afterthought, after the matter of the security upgrades at the private residency of the President became a public matter. He wanted to know if the Minister had felt constrained in one way or another from not consulting with the SIU, the Public Protector and the SANDF, as he had indicated that he was only assigned to focus on four issues.

Mr Singh then asked a number of other questions: Why was the R206 million (excluding the R31 million still to be spent on phase 3 project) of taxpayers' money spent on the private residence of the President without adherence to principles of project management and oversight? Who was responsible for this mismanagement? It was understandable that there was still on-going litigation on some of the matters and therefore it would not be wise to go into much detail. However, there appeared to be a discrepancy between the SIU report and that of the Minister of Police. The SIU report, at page 207, made it very clear that the “firepool”, construction of 20 units, visitors' lounge, VIP parking, air conditioning and relocation of poor households were not part of the security measures. However, the Minister still maintained that these were part of the security measures. He asked why the Minister was saying that the 21 houses that were built for SANDF and SAPS were not part of the security features,?

Mr N Kwankwa (UDM) mentioned that Members were mainly interested in how much was spent on the security upgrades in the private residence of the President, how much was necessary and what was wasteful expenditure. The Minister had indicated that there was no record of the minutes of the meeting where the President and his family had made requests for the security upgrades in his private residence, and this was because those meetings were classified information. However, page 29 of the SIU report had made it clear that the SIU was vaguely told that these meetings were classified, and this was contradictory to the statement of the Minister. In addition, the Public Protector highlighted that the President had requested the building of a larger kraal and said he was willing to reimburse the state on the cost to be incurred. This indicated that the President had admitted liability to pay for the extension of the kraal. The Minister’s report had portrayed the extension of kraal as an inconvenience to the family. These inconsistencies were suggesting to Members that perhaps the Minister was not in a position to make credible findings about the President.

Mr Nhleko responded that it was important for Members to be as objective as possible when engaging on the matter of security upgrades at the private residence of the President, and to deal with the actual facts on the ground. The political leaders in the country had a responsibility to ensure that the point of emphasis, all the time, was institutional order. It was important to stop looking at matters from an individual point of view as this was watering down on the kind of leadership that should be provided. There had been a series of events that led to the finalisation of the Minister’s report and processes were followed, therefore it was incorrect to assume that the justifications in the report were an afterthought. It was peculiar to discover that the estimated figure of R31 million was often included in the R246 million for the security upgrades, and the question in this instance should be how it was possible to have an estimation included as a cost, as no cost had yet been incurred for that. The SIU and the Public Protector had already done their work and therefore the role of the Minister was to tap into the work that had already been done.

Mr Nhleko added that it was important to bear to mind that the SIU dealt with a whole range of matters and the scope of the Minister of Police was defined by what was referred to as “non-security features”. These included the “firepool”, extension of the kraal, amphitheatre and the visitors# lounge. Therefore, the role of the Minister of Police was not to look at the whole broad scope of the security upgrades at the private residence of the President. It was important to bear in mind that his presentation focused on the instruments that had been used to arrive at a certain conclusion, for example, the purpose of constructing a “firepool”. Central to this was the work of the security expert who was able to unpack everything that was required to ensure the safety of the President.

Mr Kwankwa asked whether it was possible to determine if the money that had been spent on the swimming pool had exceeded what was reasonable. The report of the Public Protector had made it very clear that the Minister of Police needed to work with the National Treasury (NT) in order to determine the amount that the President was liable to contribute for the non-security upgrades at his private residence. This was precisely the reason why there were some disagreements regarding the report.

Mr Nhleko responded that it was the responsibility of the Committee to review the resolution that had been taken by Parliament, that the Minister must focus only on four issues. The DPW had already begun with the internal disciplinary processes and this was one of the ways of ensuring that those who were involved in the cost escalations and project mismanagement were able to be held accountable. Twelve officials were involved in the project and had been charged with irregular appointment of contractors. One junior official pleaded guilty and was given a three-month salary suspension and suspended from participating in any supply chain processes until he had undergone  training. It was impossible to see whether the spending pattern for the pool could suggest that it was initially meant to be used for recreational purpose, and the security evaluation was an exercise on its own before even coming to the costing. The question of a need for security upgrades, especially a “firepool”, was established by security experts through the evaluation, but the manifestation of that need required input from the professionals and experts, and there was no contradiction in that.

Mr Nhleko disputed the assertion that the 21 houses that were constructed for housing the SANDF and SAPS members were part of the security upgrades, as it was impossible for security measures to be a kilometre away from the President homestead.

The Chairperson promised Members that the SAPS security evaluation report and the DPW investigation report of 2014 were currently being photocopied and would be circulated to everyone. It was important to emphasise that both of the reports were previously classified and they had now been declassified.

Mr Singh asked whether it was possible to agree that the Department of Police had wasted taxpayers' money on the construction of four security features that had been discussed today.

Mr Nhleko responded that it was important to appreciate the fact that there were investigations that were on-going regarding the cost escalations, scope script, mismanagement of funds and the total disregard for the prescripts of Supply Chain Management (SCM). The literature showed that in most construction projects the prices were always inflated, and this was happening in many countries. A legal strategy had been adopted by the SIU and therefore it would be difficult for the Minister to comment on that issue. The focus should indeed be on how to ensure that this mismanagement of funds in the construction industry did not happen again.  

Mr A Tloumma (AGANG) appreciated the presentation that had been made by the Minister. He said that it would be truly difficult to agree with the report that had been produced by the Minister as it would be like losing his consciousness. He wanted to know whether the use of a swimming pool as a form of extinguishing fire was a common practice in rural areas. It would be important for the Committee to get the reports of the experts upon which the Minister of Police had relied in his report. This was to determine whether these people were really “experts in their fields” capable of giving an expert opinion. The work that had been done these people did not suggest that they were anywhere near experts. He commented that the report that had been produced by the Minister showed how the democracy of South Africa was dying and how the key institutions were being paralysed day in and day out.

Mr Tloumma added that the Minister’s report was clearly nullifying the report of the Public Protector, which had pointed out that the President had unduly benefited from the security upgrades at his private residence and therefore needed to pay back a portion of the money. The rejection of the report of the Public Protector might also suggest that the Public Protector was either incompetent or did not have the expertise to have done what needed to be done. He said he had the impression that the Minister of Police was clearly defending the indefensible and he had hoped that his report might have just recommended that the President must apologise to the nation. He quipped that the Minister could be good at writing fiction. The Minister’s report could have been used if it was presented after the visit to the private residence of the President, to compare the report with what the Committee would observe. The Minister was truly endangering what the country had already achieved since 1994, at the expense of protecting the President. It was not clear whether the swimming pool was part of the contingency plan or was, from the beginning, one of the security measures taken to extinguish fire. The Minister should surely have an opinion on the Public Protector report instead of trying to disassociate himself from that report. It was totally unbelievable that the Minister had reached the conclusion that the President must be exonerated from paying a portion of the non-security upgrades at his private residence.

Mr N Khubisa (NFP) indicated that the duty of the Minister was to determine what constituted security and non-security measures, but the Minister expanded his scope by providing details of the money that had been spent on the security upgrades. However, the Minister had failed to provide a breakdown of the money that had been spent on the project, including professional fees and this was the main point of concern. He wondered why a reservoir was not built as a security measure to extinguish fire? It was also troubling to realise that the recommendations of the Public Protector were not taken into consideration, and the bulk of the Minister’s report was directed towards justifying the innocence of the President.

Ms C September (ANC) wanted to know what constituted security and non-security measures, according to the Minister’s report. Access control was legislatively defined as a multidimensional issue and the Minister was not clear if this was taken into consideration with regard to the visitors' centre.

Mr J Steenhuisen (DA) said that the Minister seemed to assume that he had derived his mandate from Parliament and this was not the case, as paragraph 5.9 of the previous Ad Hoc Committee report made it clear that “the Committee recommends that the matter of what constitutes security and non-security upgrades at the President’s private residence be referred back to Cabinet for determination by relevant security experts”. The CV of the Minister suggested that he had a background in public service administration and correctional services and tenure as a Member of Parliament, and therefore the Minister did not have any security expert background. The only mandate that was carried by the Minister was that of President Zuma, as there was no such mandate in the SIU report or the Public Protector’s report. The Minister of Police had exposed himself to a potential risk of conflict of interests and this was precisely the reason why some Members felt that there was a need to call the Public Protector or the Head of SIU. It was reckless for the Minister to suggest that the Public Protector was also appointed by the President, but was able to come up with what might be considered as adverse recommendations to the President. He reminded the Minister that the opposition parties were involved in the appointment and the removal of the Public Protector, but not in appointment and removal of the ministers. It would surely be uncomfortable for the Minister to suggest that the President must pay back the portion of the money for non-security features, as this was the same person that the Minister was dependent upon for appointment.

Mr Steenhuisen added that the Minister was silent on the fact that the President would continue to enjoy the benefits that had been derived from the security upgrades even after the end of his tenure as a President and this should be seen as an undue benefit. He wondered what would happen to the security upgrades and assets if the President was to be recalled or impeached next week? What would happen to the assets of the President at the expiry of his term? It was impossible for the Minister to attempt to divorce the assets at the private residency of the President from his homestead, as there was a very strong link between the two. The Minister chose to focus only on four measures that were considered as non-security features, while in reality there were extensive measures that were considered as non-security measures by both the reports of the SIU and the Public Protector, so  the Minister had overridden both of these reports.

Mr Steenhuisen said that the site of the swimming pool strongly suggested that this was originally intended for recreational purpose as the main house of the President was not even visible when standing in the swimming pool. The swimming pool was also absurdly located in a place where there was high concentration of potential threat to life, as this was the highest occupancy and the highest volume of tributaries. It must be concluded that the primary purpose of the swimming pool was for recreational purpose. There was nothing wrong with having a swimming pool, but the President needed to pay this out of his own pocket. He wondered if any consideration had been given to strengthening the fire-fighting capacity within the district, through other equipment or new fire stations which could service the residence of Nkandla and the broader community?

Mr Nhleko responded that the Minister’s report was also based on the Public Protector’s report, which pointed out the non-security features (swimming pool, chicken run, visitor’s centre and the amphitheatre) for which the President was liable to pay. It was impossible to do the planning of the security measures to be implemented at the private residence of the President as no one had been aware that the President would be Mr Zuma, until after the elections. It should be a concern of everyone to see the weakening of state institutions as nobody was to benefit from this, and it was incorrect to assume that the Minister’s response to the resolution of the House was meant to weaken the state institutions. He disputed the notion that the President needed to apologise for the project mismanagement at his private residence as this lacked any basis and this was one established principle.

Mr Nhleko asserted that the Minister’s report was based on extensive research. This was the approach that had to be taken and the Minister needed to consult relevant literature and interview different people. It was misguided to assume that the work that had been done by the Minister was “fictitious” or generated in his own head. The amphitheatre, “firepool” and the visitors' centre all came out about as part of the package of security measures. He wanted to be upfront on the fact that he was also not a security expert, but the problem with this self-defeating notion was that it was also used for the Public Protector. The Minister had consulted different security experts in order to make determinations on the security and non-security features at Nkandla. It was important to reiterate, once again, that the President not only appointed the ministers but also the judges, public protectors and other parastatal and agency heads, but this did not mean that favours must be given to the President in their functions. The Minister was guided by the Constitution. If Members were to subject the issue of governance to personality cult, then the country was heading for a huge disaster.

In regard to the question of whether there was a “firepool” built for the previous President, he noted that the security evaluation and threat analysis differed from one area to another and therefore the creation of the “firepool” had more to do with the architecture of the homestead. It was not useful for Members to do a comparative analysis on these security upgrades.

Mr Nhleko added that page 10 of the Minister’s report provided a detailed analysis of the scope of the Minister's report, and how this was based on the resolution of the House. Members could be given a further breakdown of the professional fees as this was contained in the financial statements of the DPW. The visitors' centre was intended for the screening of the visitors and the discussion of confidential state information, and these minimum security standards could not be done in front of the family premises. In regard to the question of what would happen if the President was to step down tomorrow, it was important to remind Members that the country had had presidents before and the security features continued to be part of the package that governed the work of the former presidents. Essentially, the state still continued to take the responsibility for the security of the former presidents. It was seen that former presidents were still playing various diplomatic roles, particularly in the conflicts on the Continent and anywhere else in the world, and this was to be taken into consideration in the context of security measures. The state had a duty to protect the Head of State and this was the priority of the Department of Police in the case of security upgrades at the private residence of the President.

Mr Nhleko mentioned that there were designated units with expertise on security measures within the SAPS, and these were amongst the people who were consulted in the implementation of the security measures at Nkandla. It was absurd that Mr Steenhuisen was accusing the Minister of not being a security expert, but he was also becoming an “expert” on his analysis of the security upgrades at Nkandla. This was proved by the assertion that there was definitely a link between the 21 houses and the residence of the President, which suggested that Mr Steenhuisen was already in the “expert zone”. There was no link between the 21 houses and the residence of the President and this was a matter that was still to be clarified, in order to determine the original intention of the 21 houses. Members would have an opportunity to visit the homestead tomorrow and this would assist everyone in seeing the layout of the whole place and the location of the “firepool”, which would clarify many of the issues. There would still be some engagements on the strengthening of the fire-fighting capacity within the districts through other equipment or new fire stations which could service the residence of Nkandla and the broader community.

Mr L Ntshayisa (AIC) wanted to know if there was a specific reason why the Minister was silent on the critical issues that had been identified as having the potential to put the life of the President and his family at risk, and especially whether they had been taken into consideration in the Minister’s report. The DPW report, on page 11, indicated that the President was initially supposed to pay R10 million for the non-security upgrades but this amount was reduced to R3 million for unknown reasons. It was absurd that the animal enclosure was outside the President’s residence but was still considered as one of the security features. 

Dr M Motshekga (ANC) said that Members had failed to deal with the merits and the demerits of the Minister’s report. The Minister had reiterated that he was only reacting to the resolution of the House, and maybe the disagreement was on that resolution that had been taken by the House rather than the report. The law was very clear that there was no further responsibility of the Public Protector after the investigation, deliberation and submission of the report. It was Parliament that was now charged with taking the matter further, and it seemed that most Members did not understand this basic law. The Constitution was also very clear that the findings of the Public Protector were not binding or enforceable, and therefore it was irrational for Members to call on the Public Protector to appear before the Committee. The confusion around the extension of the cattle kraal originated from the fact that most of the people were not aware of the African religion or the African context, where a cattle kraal was used for various purposes, like a burial place or place for performance of the rituals or even communication with the ancestors. 

Ms Kubayi indicated that the Minister’s report was not only about the recommendations but also about observations that had been made by the previous Ad Hoc Committee. She also wanted to make the point that the executive was accountable to Parliament, and not the officials, and therefore the Minister had the authority to report to the Committee, and not the officials. 

Mr Selfe emphasised that no one disputed that the Head of State needed to be protected from any possible threat. However, the priority should be about ensuring that those security measures were legitimate and appropriate. The main problem with the Minister’s report was the fact that it was only confined to four of the issues that were queried as “non-security features”, while the Public Protector’s report also included the private medical clinic as one of the non-security features. Why was the Minister only confined to those four distinctive areas that were queried as non-security features?The Public Protector’s report made it very clear that the President had requested the building of a larger kraal to accommodate his increasing livestock, and said nothing about cultural purposes. That report also pointed out that the President was willing to reimburse the state on the cost to be incurred, and this indicated that the President had admitted responsibility to pay for the extension of the kraal. The SIU report, on page 133, had provided a distinction between the security upgrades and non-security upgrades, including the lifts and tunnels, and it would be important to know why the Minister failed to cover these in his report based on the mandate that was taken by the last Ad Hoc Committee and enforced by the resolution of Parliament.

Mr Nhleko responded that the more Members debated the security features of the President, the more this exposed the President and his family to any potential threat. This was an issue to be taken into consideration and this then  went back to the need to conduct a security re-evaluation at the private residence of the President. There was no logical explanation in the reports that had been consulted as to why the R10 million that the President was asked to pay for the security upgrades at Nkandla was reduced firstly to R3 million, and subsequently to nothing. He asserted that the animal enclosure was not outside the homestead of the President, so the impression that this infrastructure was outside the residence of the President was incorrect. The President had compiled a report reacting to the report of the Public Protector and the discussions in Parliament. The President had denied that there were ever any discussions between him and the Public Protector, and it was important to know that was what needed to be followed at the moment. The President's report also refuted the commitment that was claimed to have been made by the President to reimburse the state for the extension of the kraal. 

Mr Nhleko reiterated that the cattle kraal was considered as a high security risk because the family homestead was closer to the cattle kraal, and therefore the location of the livestock was likely to interfere with the security technology like motion detectors. This had motivated the relocation of the livestock. This was a factor that was taken into consideration in the relocation of the cattle kraal and the building of the animal enclosure at the bottom of the homestead, as detailed in the Minister’s report. It was important to note that the focus on the Minister’s report was also on the reports before President Zuma assumed office in 2009. A security evaluation report would still need to be generated, arising out of the factors that had exposed the security of the President and his family. These reports would be considered as new reports.

Adv Breytenbach said that it was clear that Mr Minihle Makhanya had effectively become the project manager, and it was clear that this person was under someone else’s instruction. It would be bizarre and offensive to say that the President did not know about the security upgrades at his private residency, as the instructions to the architecture were in fact the instructions of the President. It was of concern that the Minister’s report failed to take into consideration the fact that the SIU report, on page 134, had made it clear that “much of the security measures that were implemented in the private residence of the President were not requested to the extent and scope that was constructed”.

Ms T Mahambehlala (ANC) indicated that most Members seemed to elevate the Public Protector’s report to something that was supreme. She reminded the Committee that the recommendations of the Public Protector were not enforceable, and therefore should still be discussed in the National Assembly (NA). She also questioned the expertise of the Public Protector when it came to security measures and how the Public Protector had come to her particular determination or distinguishing between the security and non-security measures. It was important for Members to focus on their mandate, which was to consider the Minister’s report. The Minister of Police, as an implementing minister under the National Key Points Act, was liable for any contributions in respect of the security upgrades, and therefore it was misguided to suggest that the SANDF officials were supposed to make the determinations on whether the President was liable to pay for the security upgrades. The Minister had not provided any explanation on the R40 million that had not been accounted for in the security upgrades at private residence of the President and the measures in place to recover such amount.

Mr Kwankwa said that Ms Mahambehlala was correct to point it out that it was impossible to separate the Minister from his department, but the view and concern of the UDM was that it should be clear  where the Minister had derived his mandate. The Minister was also correct to say that he could not determine the resolution that had been taken by the House. The Minister might be correct to say that there was no evidence that the President and his family had an influence in the security upgrades at his private residence. However, this concealed the fact that there was no documented evidence, by way of the minutes of the meeting where the President and his family had made requests for the security upgrades in his private residence. It might be easy to speculate that perhaps the President or his family members had an influence in the security improvements in Nkandla, and this could also go back to the statement that had been made by the Public Protector that the President had requested the building of a larger kraal and he was willing to reimburse the state on the cost to be incurred.

Mr Nhleko reiterated that there would be a further clarification on the 21 houses that were constructed for housing the SANDF and SAPS members. It seemed that most Members had been forcing a linkage between the 21 houses and the security upgrades, despite the fact that the SIU report did not see those houses as part of the security upgrades. The R135.2 million was “lumped together” with the R50.5 million plus the R20.7 million, and it was a departure from the supply chain management prescripts, as there should have been separate cost centres for security upgrades and for the construction of those houses.

He noted that the clinic was located outside the homestead of the President, and this again would be quite clear during the visit to Nkandla tomorrow. It was difficult at the moment to ascertain whether the clinic could also be used by the broader community in Nkandla. The park homes were currently occupied by the SAPS; ten units would be occupied by the SAPS and the other ten units would be occupied by the SANDF. The R246 million was a speculated amount in the media and public discourse. The amount of R40 million was the money that would be impossible to be accounted for, if the discussions followed this speculated amount.

Mr Nhleko added that the questions about the reason on the relocation of the kraal had been discussed and explained at length already. There was no documented evidence of the discussions between the President and the Public Protector concerning the relocation of the cattle kraal. It was possible to spend the whole day speculating the meaning of the absence of evidence of that meeting between the President and the Public Protector, which could be caused by other logistical matters that were beyond anyone's control. He indicated that Members had a societal responsibility to deal with the issues at hand, without focusing on speculations and suspicions that had no basis.

Ms C Coleman (ANC) appreciated that the Minister had acknowledged that he was not a security expert, and this was also alluded to in page 17 of the Minister’s report - hence he was compelled to consult with the security experts. It was important to know if there would be any reimbursement of the wasteful expenditure that was incurred by the state in the security upgrades at the private residence of the President. She wanted to know if the 21 houses were currently utilised sustainably so as to ensure that there was value for taxpayers' money. She asked if the amount of R135.2 million was accommodated in the relocation of the castle kraal. The Minister did not explain why there was a need for the animal enclosure while the homestead of the President was enclosed, and this explanation could assist Members when visiting the homestead on the following day.

Mr D Gamede (ANC) stressed that the mandate of the Committee was to interrogate and scrutinise the Minister’s report, and the interrogation would not be complete until all Members had visited the homestead on the following day. The visit to the homestead would be important as it would allow Members to reconcile what was in the Minister’s report to their own observations during the visit. He urged the Committee to strictly adhere to the Minister’s report and not to any other reports that had been referred by Members. This would assist in doing a proper deliberation on Thursday 23 July 2015. 

Ms B Ngcobo (ANC) said that some of the mismanagements that had been highlighted in the report on the project could be said to be quite common in a big project like the one that was done at Nkandla. The security upgrades were only meant to secure the President’s residence, without erecting new houses. She appreciated that the Minister had followed the resolution that had been taken by the House and it was essential for Members to specifically focus on his report. It was indeed confusing that there was only one cost centre as there should have been at least three cost centres so that the SAPS and SANDF could be able to carry the cost, and these two departments should reimburse the DPW for the costs that had been incurred. The terminology that had been used by the public when discussing the security upgrades at Nkandla had tended to exaggerate the benefits that had been derived by the President, and this was particularly the case in the reference to the “amphitheatre”. 

Mr Singh wanted to know if it was the policy of the Department of Police not to build a police station on the Ingonyama Trust land, although a R135.2 million infrastructure was built on the Ingonyama Trust land. He questioned the relationship between the Ingonyama Trust and the SAPS. He asked if the Cabinet had adopted the Minister’s report in its entirety before it was presented to the Committee. Was it possible that a Cabinet Memorandum could supercede or override an Act of Parliament?

Mr Nhleko responded that the occupation by the state of the land adjacent to that occupied by the President, and the points about where security and other measures were constructed and installed were covered under the KwaZulu-Natal Ingonyama Trust Act (No 3 of 1994). There was a requirement for a proper lease agreement. In this regard, the lease agreement in question covered clinic, barracks and heli-pad. The impression that was created in the public was that the whole homestead was funded by the state, and this had been point had been put about by the media for the past few years. It was indeed true that the particular terminology used could be confusing. What was often referred as an “amphitheatre” was essentially to be used as a soil retention wall, and this was again built for security reasons. It was important for those that would be responsible for project management to emphasise the common usage of terminologies that would be accessible to everyone. 

Mr Nhleko pointed out that he did not have a response on whether the Cabinet Memorandum could supercede or override an Act of Parliament. All security upgrades, post-1994, for the Presidents, Deputy Presidents and former presidents and their deputies were conducted under the auspices of the Cabinet Policy of 2003.This policy was adopted when the National Key Points Act of 1980 was still in force. He said that surely there must have been some motivation from the Cabinet, in 2003, to come to the conclusion that that Act was not sufficient and therefore that the country needed to have a policy to govern the whole question of how the security upgrades were to be conducted. He criticised Members who seemed to question the credibility of the security and fire experts without any sincere constructive point of view.

He reiterated that the state would still have the responsibility to provide personal protection and security upgrades even after the end of President Zuma’s tenure, and the security infrastructure that had been installed would still be in place. The water in the area was supplied by uThungulu District Municipality and there was consultation on the water availability in the area. He highlighted that one of the things that was not included in the “firepool” demonstration was to show the water hydrant in the property. Water was supplied from a galaxy reservoir that held about 250kl of water.

The Chairperson thanked everyone who was present in the meeting throughout the day and indicated that the purpose of the meeting on Thursday 23 July 2015 would be to hold further deliberations after the visit to the private residence of the President.

The meeting was adjourned.