Skip to main content

Nkandla: A Festering Cherry On Top Of Corrupted Rule: ANC Dystopia ~ Technical & Ethical Maladministration and Ineptness

  • Author:
  • Updated date:

Hidden Rules And Underground Laws For The Ruling ANC

Rules hidden in Plain Sight

Rules hidden in Plain Sight

Madonsela report on Nkandla upgrades

The Indictment Of ANC-Led Government By The Poor People Of South Africa

Leadership Crisis: Reflections On The Nkandla Report

I have written some articles here on HubPages to expose and breakdown the ANC's corrupt rule, inefficiency ,lack of ethics and and what now has been labelled as maladministration by South Africa's Public Protector, Thuli Madonsela.

There is a deeper leadership crisis of which Zuma has become a symptom. But he isn’t the sum total of the incumbent government’s problems. And this is the central confusion many ANC voters suffer: an inability to take non-legal standards of excellence seriously. Ethical leadership is a necessary condition for us to overcome our major, shared national goals.

The same goes for technical competency within the state. Unless top public servants and political principals have the capacity to execute well-thought-through policies, we won’t reach our potential.The Nkandla report clearly shows that ethical and technical competency is in short supply within the government, including President Zuma at the top.

And ANC members, like everyone else, should be disturbed by the implications of the report. It emanates from the evidence-based work of a credible constitutional authority, the public protector. It’s also crucial for many ANC voters to reflect on the horrible truth that the Nkandla report is not actually about Zuma. "It is about the ANC government." Zuma is merely a central character in the Dystopia.

It is 20 years into democracy and the African majority remains massively impoverished and excluded from opportunities to flourish. South Africa is a deeply unequal society, and becoming more unequal in some respects. But after 20 years of democracy it is time to take stock of both the achievements and limitations of public-interest litigation.

It is important that we never take for granted the radical break from a past in which Parliament reigned supreme to the present, where constitutional supremacy is the bedrock of our democracy. The practical consequence of this change is that rights are better protected than before. Better still, socio-economic rights are legally enforceable against the state. Even if the ANC were to try to spin this otherwise, breaking the law has been their creed, and implementing and enforcing the rules on corruption, political malfeasance, maladministration, ineptness, cronyism, nepotism and general disregard for human rights of their polity and decency-has been missing and absent for the past 20 years.

The Poor People Of South Africa Versus The African National Congress

It has been twenty years, and on the last year of the past two decades, were are facing national elections, and the ANC is competing to be reinstated back in to power. The ordinary folks say it plainly that they will vote for the ANC, but they have a bone to pick with the maladministration, incompetence and corruption and so forth that is so endemic within the ANC and pandemic throughout its governance.

Yes, the ANC will win the upcoming elections, and the majority, though whittled a bit, will show up and vote for the ANC, and the ANC will reinstate Zuma(as they trumpet in their press releases and through their talking heads), as the President/candidate of choice for the Presidency of the country. This is fait accompli.

One can discern this recalcitrancy and arrogance of the ANC by considering the following statement from Malala:

"The president of the republic, Jacob Zuma, and his family have been found to have benefited massively and improperly from building at his palatial estate at Nkandla.

"Upgrades costing R246-million have been completed on Zuma’s home and he wants the nation to believe that he did not know about them, had no hand in them and so will not take responsibility for any of them. With wanton looting of the public purse exposed, the president sits in office with impunity and without shame."

"You see, he is not at all ashamed. He appears not to care that he has been exposed, that the world is pointing at him and laughing at him - and at us. He has no shame. And without a sense of shame, an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, he will remain in office and continue as if nothing were wrong. In his warped view, the only thing that could lead to his removal from office would be a jail sentence.

"Twenty years into our democracy we are sliding from high ideals into a free-for-all in which politicians are a law unto themselves and accountability is a word we use only in Power Point presentations."(Malala)

"This is also what the ANC's highest decision-making body between conferences, its national executive committee, is saying about the party it leads. Not a single member of the committee is prepared to raise his hand and say to Zuma: "This far and no further." In the ANC and within NEC, the rot is now endemic [and cancerous].

"It is, of course, easy to point fingers and accuse Zuma, his friends Dina Pule and Humphrey Mmemezi, and others, of all sorts of things. Truth is, they are not the guilty party here. We are-and by enabling the ANC to rule the way it did and still does and they took advantage of that, they are too are guilty more than anybody.

"South Africans deserve these leaders. We deserve a Zuma, because we have rewarded him for his scandals: Guptagate, Khwezigate, Malawigate, the Spy Tapes, Schabir Shaik .The list is long. The truly depressing part is that these "leaders" are busy subverting our institutions and turning them into paper tigers. By the time they leave office - for they shall - they will have done a huge amount of damage. They will have crippled the public protector's office and any other institution that is supposed to hold their like to account.

Scroll to Continue

Smell the coffee, South Africa. Your country is being stolen."(Malala)

The ANC talks from two sides of it governing mouth. They assert that they are going to block any attempt to have Zuma impeached-whilst on the other side of its mouth it sends another message: that they are letting the procedure take its course-and that the Madonsela Report and recommendations should be abided by and implemented. This suits the ANC well, buying time, staling, denying and trying damage control and letting the elections go through, with a pray and wish(literally) that all will go back to 'business as usual'.

On the other hand, in the videos I have posted below on this this Hub, you have ordinary people voicing their concern, and without saying so, have the ANC on their sights, because, they have seen all that for the past twenty years, many of those projects that the ANC is supposed to furnish, finnish and provide completely to the people are just in a stand still or nonexistent. The people have shown their displeasure of unfair employment practices and they demonstrated against their wretched and nonexistent social services and sloppy and shoddy poor service delivery. The ANC government gives grants to poor Africans as a pacifier and government orchestrated hand-outs, and in the their lack of planning, there are no job created for the future.

At the same time, the taxes that are supposed to be collected are measly and dwindling, there are no jobs that are created to be taxed. At the same time, Gas has gone up; electricity is expensive; water is rationed and expensive(because 6,000 liters for a family of 20 is like a drop for one). Food is very expensive; health care is in shambles and not functioning to its full capacity; mental diseases and madness have increased amongst the poor and destitute. The people see whites doing well in greater numbers, and paltry few Africans being seriously rich. Poverty is rife, and drug addiction rampant.(Although the ANC has recently said that it will criminalize Nyaope/Wunga and other drugs), but the people have yet to see its application and implementation) There is still no policy or action taken against this drug epidemic and pandemic.

The people have a lot that they want corrected and the whole ANC revamped, and for the past twenty years, they decry the fact that this government has not really delivered on its promises. The RDP houses and malls, bridges[which are crumbling and falling] and incomplete public toilets dot the landscape, and the people are very much disenchanted with this rule and the ANC/Brand. It might be that the people are going to vote for the ANC(Because they still have fresh memories of their lives under Grand Apartheid), but now, they have had twenty years to learn about the ANC and its shenanigans-they think that they have no other choice given the field. And as matters stand, there are very angry(all races) and the Zuma scandal and saga has left them infuriated and calling up on the ANC to remove Zuma. The ANC, which now considers itself "Ngangaras"(another terms for Bass) in our parlance, and we are really a number for votes putting them into power, and that it

With the ANC digging in its heels by refusing to oust Zuma, knowing that they are going against the grain, this has become now a tug of war of the Poor people of South Africa against the ANC, but in way the people are still figuring out how to deal effectively and finally with the ANC. The Jury is still out on this part of the people's struggle. Now, the Nkandla scandal, as has been listened to in the video above by Madonsela, gives the viewer a sense of how ANC rules, and breaks the rules, and is arrogant as they they steal from the power and enrich themselves and Zuma with funds that were supposed to help the poor in Nkandla. so that, I am going to try and approach this conundrum of the Nkandla Scandal from various angles.

So, what do we find in terms of ANC reaction: "

ANC MPs launched a scathing attack on Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, labelling her "condescending" and accusing her of "overstepping her mark" in her report on the multimillion rand "security upgrading" of President Jacob Zuma's private Nkandla home. The problem is that in attacking her, few have really read the entire report

This is also what the ANC's highest decision-making body between conferences, its national executive committee(NEC), is saying about the party it leads. Not a single member of the committee is prepared to raise his hand and say to Zuma: "This far and no further." In the ANC NEC, the rot is now endemic and and a cancerous cherry at the top of the Corruption pile/cake.

It is, of course, easy to point fingers and accuse Zuma, his friends Dina Pule and Humphrey Mmemezi, and others, of all sorts of things. Truth is, they are not the guilty party here. We are. The ANC is responsible, and the Nkandla Scandal is the Scandal of and about the ANC, caused and created by the ANC

South Africans deserve these leaders. We deserve a Zuma, because we have rewarded him for his scandals: Guptagate, Khwezigate, Malawigate, the Spy Tapes, Schabir Shaik .The list is long. The truly depressing part is that these "leaders" are busy subverting our institutions and turning them into paper tigers. By the time they leave office - for they shall - they will have done a huge amount of damage. They will have crippled the public protector's office and any other institution that is supposed to hold their like to account. And yet they are canvassing for votes under the pretext and falsehood of Democracy.

Smell the coffee, South Africa. Your country is being stolen"

In order to clarify this scandal mess, I would like to state earlier on that it is true, Zuma has been caught with his pants down and his hand deep in the cookie jar. I maintain and insist that the scandal of Nkandla is a microcosm of the scandal of the whole ANC-led government. And I will be delving much deep down in this hub about my assertions: The Zuma Nkandla Scandal Is The ANC Corruption, Technically Inefficient and Maladministratively Incompetent and displaying debilitative Ineptness in their governance of South Africa. Prior to getting to that, which is further down in the Hub, here is a summary of Madonsela's report:

1. Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s report on the security upgrade at President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla home is entitled Secure in Comfort. It is just under 450 pages long and has a 75-page executive summary.

2. The final costs of Nkandla are “conservatively estimated” to amount to R246 million, but could be higher.

3. The initial cost was R27 million, but it escalated rapidly after Zuma’s private architect, Minenhle Makhanya, was appointed by the department of public works. He often recommended more luxurious and expensive options instead of going with the cheaper options and made R16.5 million (calculated as a percentage of costs) from the Nkandla project.

4. Zuma and his ministers should have acted when the Mail & Guardian blew the whistle in 2009 on the R65 million the project cost at the time, but the spending increased after that. Zuma violated the Executive Ethics Code by failing to contain state spending and benefiting from it. He wore “two hats”.

5. Zuma told Parliament that his family had built their own houses and that the state had not built any from which they benefited, but this wasn’t true. Madonsela accepted the evidence that he had told them this “in good faith”.

6. Zuma must pay for the non-security upgrades at his home, which include a visitors’ centre, an amphitheatre, a swimming pool, a cattle kraal, a culvert, a chicken run and extensive paving. In the planning stages, there were constant references to Zuma having to repay these. Mail & Guardian calculated these to cost around R20 million.

7. There was little precedent from previous presidential upgrades for the upgrades done at Nkandla. Former president Nelson Mandela, for instance, built his kraal at his own expense and didn’t require a “fire pool”.

8. Proper tender processes weren’t followed at any stage, contrary to Treasury regulations. It was justified by the department saying that it was urgent, that private works had already started, for security reasons, and that only one supplier could supply the particular service required. Still, there were delays over which Zuma himself complained in March 2010.

9. There was “massive” scope creep – Nkandla became a project with runaway costs because of bad management of service providers by relevant state organs. This created a “licence to loot” situation.

10. The National Key Points Act was “inexplicably dragged in” halfway through the Nkandla building project (in 2010) and then its provisions were not applied. Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa failed to apply his mind when he declared Nkandla a national key point.

We learn from an article written by Sarah Evans:

Public protector Thuli Madonsela's report uncovered a trail of maladministration, from ministers to officials, starting with a lack of basic knowledge about the laws and policies governing security upgrades for projects such as President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla homestead.

Madonsela said on Wednesday, during a media briefing of her office's findings, that "systemic" policy gaps and "administrative deficiencies" had led to the inflation of costs.

"Key among these being the absence of a cap and an integrated instrument such as the ministerial handbook, where all permissible measures can be found."

The Cabinet policy of 2003 is problematic because it applies to presidents, former presidents, deputy presidents and former deputy presidents.

"The risk of unbridled expenditure in the future is very real and needs immediate curbing."

What constitutes maladministration?

Madonsela instructed Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa to urgently institute a review of the National Key Points Act and to stop any further spending on Nkandla.

The minister of public works at the time, Geoff Doidge, gave Zuma the wrong information about the legal prescripts governing the Nkandla upgrades. The minister of police was no better, she said.

"The minister of police failed to properly apply his mind when signing the declaration of President Jacob Zuma's private residence as a national key point, directing the president to implement security measures at [his] own cost or to properly modify the declaration. This constitutes maladministration."

She said Doidge and Mthethwa "could have provided better executive leadership, especially with regard to speedily assessing the extent and cost of the Nkandla project, particularly when the media broke the story in 2009, and taking decisive measures to curb excessive expenditure."

This also amounted to maladministration, she said.

Supply chain management errors

Officials at the department of public works officials also did not know the basic legal framework surrounding the Nkandla upgrades, Madonsela said.

Many supply chain management errors were therefore allowed to occur: tenders were not advertised, contractors were not properly vetted and costs continued to escalate.

Madonsela also found that funds were transferred from two programmes to build Nkandla – an inner city regeneration programme and "dolomite risk management programme" at the department of public works. This constituted maladministration.

Poverty and Decrepit Housing Persists

So, exactly why should there be discontent on the eve of a "world-class extravaganza"? Well to start with, the empty campaign promises of 1994, 1999, 2004 and again 2009 of "Ša better life for allŠ", in the face of the reality of rising unemployment,

So, exactly why should there be discontent on the eve of a "world-class extravaganza"? Well to start with, the empty campaign promises of 1994, 1999, 2004 and again 2009 of "Ša better life for allŠ", in the face of the reality of rising unemployment,

William Saunderson-Meyer Writes:

The report is a magisterial 447-page tome, crafted with lawyerly precision – Madonsela was one of the technical drafters of the South African Constitution – to withstand the shit-storm of obfuscatory lawsuits against her office that it will likely unleash. While the writing is consequently careful rather than elegant, there is wry humour aplenty, including in the title of the report, Secure in Comfort, as she catalogues the four-year transformation of “seven small rondavels and a kraal” into “opulence on a grand scale”.

The KwaZulu-Natal health ministry in 2013 identified Nkandla as one of the “most underserved” areas in the province, with poor ambulance services and an inadequate police presence. Yet instead of citing the medical and policing upgrades where they could also benefit this stricken community, all the police housing was established within the Nkandla compound, as was the “private medical clinic”.

Madonsela writes that the security costs for Zuma’s home were “obscenely excessive” and at several points made the point that the foundation of a constitutional state is that “public resources should primarily be deployed to meet public needs”. The “public needs” she cites are immense.

Some 44% of Nkandla residents between the ages of 15 and 64 are unemployed. Around 10 000 households in the area have no electricity, 7 000 have no piped water and 12 000 have only pit latrines. It was “excessive and unconscionable” that the so-called security upgrades created “an island in a sea of poverty and paucity of public infrastructure”.

Madonsela has marshalled some startling statistics in support of her argument. The estimated cost of the Nkandla project escalated from R28-million to R224-million in just 18 months to December 2010. The figure of R246-million today is a “conservative” estimate and does not include any provision for maintenance of these facilities after Zuma leaves office.

The imperial nature of Zuma’s presidency is apparent when the report compares security expenditure on the private homes of South Africa’s previous presidents. PW Botha’s, in today’s currency, was a piffling R173 000; FW De Klerk cost all of R236 000; Nelson Mandela, with two private homes, cost R32-million; while Thabo Mbeki cost R8-million. How extraordinary that apartheid’s leaders – widely loathed and undoubtedly assassination targets in the liberation war – clearly didn’t fret much about security, while today’s supposedly beloved man of the masses has to live behind gilded battlements.

The best line in Madonsela’s morality tale goes not to Zuma – who shift-shapes in the background of the narrative, a ghostly presence communicating only through intermediaries – nor to any of the bombastic politicians or unctuous civil servants that she interviewed. It goes to that new epitome of cultural cringe and the post-colonial inferiority complex, Minenhle Makhanya, Zuma’s private architect, who was paid R16.5-million for his efforts.

When asked why a cattle culvert and chicken hok costing millions, he replied: “This is how they do it in England…”

Decrepit Leadership

It can be said that in South Africa, twenty years of ANC rule presents an ongoing and deep crisis of governance which has seen no effective response from the left up to now. In times of crisis, a Master is necessary to basically wade through complex propositions of specialists into a simple equation of "yes or no", such as in times of war.

"the function of a Master is to enact an authentic division – a division between those who want to drag on within the old parameters and those who are aware of the necessary change". Interestingly he says such a division "is the only path to true unity". We can therefore say that the main problem of the left up to now is the fear of the master, hence the absence of true unity and authentic action. Incidentally, capitalism has no such fears, as we have seen in the symbolism of Coca-Cola.

he fear of the master is also an outcome of the horrors of the cult of the personality which defined the Stalinist era in Russia. Truth is, the capitalist bloc has done a great job of projecting any revolutionary leader who comes to symbolise the great moment of revolution as an egotistical Stalinist, and thereby helped to spread the pseudo anarchist radicalism based on hyper individualism that has seen well meaning people worshiping ideas such as 'we are all leaders', which leads to dead ends and no possibility of enacting a real authentic moment of rebellion.

We have seen the tragic result of leaderless revolutions in Egypt, Libya and now Kiev. They end up taking instructions from Brussels and Washington DC. The initial euphoria evaporates into deep depression and mutual destructive violence and directionless. Of course all revolutions and their leaders can go bad, but this is not because there is a leader seen as the symbolic representation of the moment.

The quasi religiosity that accompanies radical politics can be read as the necessary transcendental energy so beautifully captured by Thomas Sankara, when he said, "You cannot carry out fundamental change without a certain amount of madness".

Madonsela unpacks Nkandla report

Change Of the ANC Guard

How Corrupt Is The ANC? Access To Corruption Is Why The ANC Rules

News24 informs us:

"Let me just say corruption in South Africa by the ANC Government is shocking.

Professor Micheal Savage, a sociologist at the University of York in England,wrote:

"Theft, fraud and violence, South African MP's do it all. A culture of impunity has made the South African parliament one of the most scandal-ridden govrnments in the world whereby MP's are arrested for drunken driving,shoplifting,fraud and varied corruption offences.

Of the 535 MPs, 29 have been found guilty of domestic violence, 7 have been arrested for fraud, 19 have been accussed of bouncing fraudulent cheques,117 have been involved in at least two businesses that have gone bankrupt, 71 cannot obtain a credit card because of their bad credit ratings,14 have been arrested on drug-related charges, 8 have been arrested for shoplifting, 84 have been arrested for drunken driving.

Tony Yengeni,the former chief whip of the ANC,who was convicted for fraud in 2003 while chairing the country's defence committee said this of their ANC elite of which he's part of:"What does the high court got to do with my life?I don't have to ask permission from them to do certain things...

When asked about his numurous luxury cars which includes a MASERATI and two BMW's he replied "many other people have cars including white people who still have all the wealth of this country".

For those brought up in the townships politics becomes the doorway to self-enrichment. Survivalism in SA is seen as political entitlement.Few MP's ever goes to prison.

2.The Washington Post newspaper wrote this:

South Africa loses billions of dollars due to negligence and corruption by the ANC Government.

"A South African government minister reportedly spends the equivalent of nearly $70,000(US) of taxpayer money on a trip to Switzerland to visit his girlfriend in jail who is facing drug charges, then tells his president that he was on official business. He claims to have been on sick leave since February. Another minister and the police chief were implicated in an unlawful deal to lease police buildings at inflated prices, which then cost taxpayers more than $250 million(US).

These incidents pale beside the sprawling,routine corruption and negligence in South African governance exposed by Willie Hofmeyr,the head of the anti-corruption agency known as the Special Investigating Unit. Hofmeyr told Parliament that around 20% of all government procurements or more than $3.8 billion,go missing each year-most of which gets stolen and the rest untraceable because of negligence.

The South African government barely blinked when that report was made.

Hofmeyr is currently investigating more than 900 cases of questionable contracts and conflicts of interest,valued at more than $635 million.The worst theft, he said, takes place at the local government level, where there wasn't that much oversight.

Recommendations were made to Zuma to act against corrupt ministers. And what is Zuma's response to all that? A presidential spokesman said at the time "that Zuma would respond to the recommendations when he is ready".

3.From the New York Times newspaper tells us this:

South Africa Slips From the Moral High Ground says ALAN COWELL.

"South Africa has never liked to see itself in any way as run-of-the-mill country, instead preferred to cast itself as aloof from the corruption, strife and misrule so often associated with the continent to its north.

Hence Thabo Mbeki's calling the country's first democratic election in 1994 as "an African Renaissance".

However South Africa have become a different country under its newest coterie of the most powerful that surrounds President Jacob Zuma and has since lost its claim to the moral high ground.

Archbishop Desmond M.Tutu, said recently of the ANC "Mr.Zuma,you and your government don’t represent me...You represent your own interests."

The archbishop’s remarks provoked some sharp reactions from the ANC.

“In the GREATER scheme of things,who is Bishop Tutu?A prelate who was won honors because he raised his voice against apartheid? Who did not?” said ANC veteran Thula Bopela.

Corruption and patronage have replaced principle and promised transparency in South Africa.

Author Njabulo S. Ndebele wrote "South Africans have become corrupted by the attractions of instant wealth, reflecting a potentially catastrophic collapse in the once cohesive understanding of the post-apartheid project as embodied in our constitution.The ANC functions as a state within the state, and it thinks it is the state."

Dr.R.Simangaliso Kumalo,the head of the School of Religion and Theology at the University of KwaZulu-Natal,wrote:"Pretoria seemed to side with dictators like President Robert G.Mugabe in Zimbabwe or Col.Muammar Qaddafi in Libya blending its debts to those who supported it in the liberation struggle with a hard-nosed pragmatism.

Political analyst Eusebius McKaiser said in a lecture in August, discussing South Africa’s role in the Libya conflict:

"It is clear to me that we do not have a moral foreign policy. There is little indication that our foreign policy is consistently and genuinely informed by a thorough commitment to project our domestic constitutional principles onto the international arena.”

Indeed, those principles —or the threats to them — lie at the center of the debate.Two years after their first free election in 1994, South Africa created a new constitution guaranteeing rights that much of Africa had shunned,ignored or undermined and seeming to lock the land onto the moral coordinates of its struggle for democracy.

But the ground has shifted. Max du Preez,a journalist and author wrote:"Nothing anybody says or does can be taken at face value any longer, because we suspect this can only be explained if one understands what the doer or speaker wants to achieve in terms of his or her factional interest.”

So from a government minister, a front-page sex scandal and claims of a honey trap set by "spooks" determined to crush enemies of the president!

What an interesting government South Africa has in power! Turbulent some might argue,but so very much corrupt as well."

The rot discussed above only goes to show that the ANC is being disingenuous when it refutes the Nkandla report. The rot is so extensive that I suspect the electorate becomes overwhelmed and see it as corruption, but are powerless to do anything about it. Most parliamentarians are thugs, thieves of a criminal type and immoral type, murderers, ignoramuses, skill-less leaders, opportunists, cabals cronyism-simly, corruption unhinged and on steroids. To this, the ANc chooses to ignore, pooh-pooh and dismiss as what those who dislike the ANC always do to smear and castigate the ANC in a negative light. But, the Nkandla report has and other press reading thus far, give us a better and larger picture as to the Brand of the ANC we are stuck with today.

Justice Factor TX24March2014 Nkandla Report Special

Awarding And Protecting Corrupted And Corruption By Leaders and Operatives Within The ANC

We are going to looking at several articles here in South Africa which talk to the corruption in the ANC. Like the Press realse by the Democratic Alliance Press relaese that states:

South Africa: Zuma's ANC Is Not Serious About Fighting Corruption

It has been revealed today that a number of ANC leaders who have made it onto the party's list of candidates to go to Parliament or provincial legislatures are either facing corruption charges or have already been found guilty.

This includes former ANC Chief Whip, Tony Yengeni, who was found guilty for accepting a bribe during the Arms Deal; ANC Northern Cape Chairman, John Block, who has had criminal charges laid against him for fraud and racketeering; former Gauteng MEC, Humphrey Mmemezi, who was fired for misuse of public money and former ANCYL Treasurer, Pule Mabe who faces charges of fraud, theft and money laundering.

This comes on the back of the ANC's so-called commitment, expressed in its election manifesto, to fight corruption by requiring "... any ANC member or ANC public representative found guilty by a court of law to step down from any leadership positions, in the ANC, government and society."

This "commitment" has been shown up to be nothing more than a smokescreen. It is hypocritical and cannot be taken seriously by South Africans.

It also shouldn't come as a surprise. The reality is that the ANC cannot commit to the fight against corruption when their very own leader, President Jacob Zuma, does everything possible to delay the release of the spy tapes in order to avoid having to answer for over 700 charges of corruption in a court of law. Moreover, the ANC does nothing to hold its president to account for the spending of over R200 million of public money on his private residence in Nkandla.[For if they were to do so, then they will be accusing the Whole ANC clique or leadership and its followers].

South Africans can now see that the ANC has no political will to fight corruption. Instead it has again been revealed as a political party that awards corrupt leaders and officials by placing in them in important positions.

Indeed, it is the clearest indication yet that Zuma and the ANC have completely abandoned the legacy of their predecessors.

Also, one can read a report on the ANC by Richard Pithouse titled:

Zuma's Legacy: A Rotten ANC

Zuma’s name will go down in history as the name of the moment when it became clear that the ANC was rotten, says Richard Pithouse.

Jacob Zuma will not be redeemed by a “Lula moment” or “second transition”. His name will go down in history with Marikana and Nkandla(included is rape, Guptagate, gun smuggling, etc-my addition)

Different people will call the precise moment at which the conflation of the idea of the ANC with the altogether more tawdry realities of the existing ANC became both irrational and immoral differently.

For some people the tipping point was the SACP’s embrace of the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. For others it was the repression of the mutiny in uMkhonto we Sizwe in Angola in 1984(Paul Trewhela, discussed a bit below, revealed this expose). The demobilisation of popular forces in the 1990s was a turning point for some people. The decision to voluntarily implement a structural adjustment programme in 1996 was the final straw for some.

There was a large group of people for whom the election of Jacob Zuma to the Presidency of the party in 2007 – on the back of a thuggish campaign, despite clear evidence of corruption and Zuma’s atrocious behaviour during his rape trial – made it impossible to continue to see the party as an emancipatory project.

There are people for whom Zuma’s inaction during the xenophobic pogroms in 2008, and the failure to hold anyone to account for the pogrom, marked the end of the dream.

The brazen attacks on Abahlali baseMjondolo in Durban in 2009, openly backed by the state and the ruling party, was the point of no return for others.

The televised murder of Andries Tatane marked the end of a dream for some people. The relentless accumulation of corruption scandals around Zuma, his family and other figures in the party, have also corroded the ANC’s standing.[I still maintain that the exposing of the scandal of Nkandla by Thuli Madonsela, is the ANC Scandal]

But it has been Marikana and Nkandla that have done the most damage to Zuma and the ANC.

The fact that Zuma has presided over a massacre of striking workers – a massacre for which no one has been held accountable – while building a palace for himself with public funds, makes any attempt to defend him or his party simply and entirely scurrilous.

With a licence to kill and a licence to loot the ANC has become a predatory excrescence on society.

Elite nationalism tends to conflate the interests of the people as a whole with the interests of elites. It remains a powerful force in our society for many reasons, one of which is that for as long as wealth and power remain concentrated in white hands, there is a progressive aspect to the accumulation of black wealth and power.

But elite nationalism also functions to reproduce and to legitimate exploitation, exclusion and repression.

Marikana and Nkandla both, in very different ways, mark a major breakdown in the ability of elite nationalism to claim that it is in the interests of the people as a whole.

Marikana marks the moment at which it became untenable to continue to pretend that workers’ interests should be subordinate to those of elites claiming to represent the nation as a whole.

Marikana was never about the worker in isolation. It was always about the worker in community, both on the mines and in the countryside. But because the worker, as a political figure, is so often imagined in masculine terms, this was often elided.

One reason for this is that much of the theory woven into the standard visions of redemptive alternatives to capitalism places the worker, often implicitly assumed to be male, at the heart of both the struggle for a new order and the new order itself. This kind of theory, common in some conceptions of socialism, is useful for drawing a political distinction between those who produce wealth and those who appropriate it. But just as some forms of nationalism function to exclude people who are not part of the elite, some forms of socialism reduce the people to the workers and function to exclude both people who are not workers in the formal sense, as well as sites of struggle outside of the workplace, from the political imagination.

We have a long history of the community and the home becoming sites of crucial political import. The struggle to build and sustain a home was central to many mobilisations over the last century, including moments like the popular power built by the Industrial & Commercial Workers’ Union in Durban in the late 1920s and early 1930s, the squatters movements around Johannesburg in the 1940s, the struggles against eviction in the late 1950s and the struggles in the shack lands around the major cities in the 1980s, perhaps most famously in Crossroads in Cape Town.

And given the way in which the regulation of space was central to Apartheid, the act of building and sustaining a home often had, even when it has not connected to overly political forms of mobilisation, deeply political consequences. Cooking, cleaning, washing, ironing and raising children all become practices with real political weight.

This is not unique to our experience. US author and social activist bell hooks writes that in the US: “historically, African-American people believed that the construction of a home-place, however fragile and tenuous (the slave hut, the wooden shack), had a radical dimension, one’s homeplace was the one site where one could freely construct the issue of humanzation (sic), where one could resist. Black women resisted by making homes where all black people could strive to be subjects, not objects, where we could be affirmed in our minds and hearts despite poverty, hardship, and deprivation, where we could restore to ourselves the dignity denied us on the outside in the public world.”

In post-Apartheid South Africa the community and the home are often still sites of real political intensity. The courage and tenacity with which people rebuild their shacks again and again after violent evictions and, in Durban, state-backed murder, is astonishing.[We should not forget that these struggles have been ongoing even just as intensely during Grand Apartheid rule-my addition]

This sphere of politics is not taken seriously. The standard theories for imagining better societies, and strategies for getting there, are often not well equipped to make sense of it. When this sphere of politics does show up in the elite public sphere it is often silenced by being automatically presented as a ‘service delivery protest’ or presented, sometimes in plainly racist terms, as an irrational and threatening eruption of violence and criminality.

But the contrast between the palace that Zuma has built for himself and his family with public money, some of it taken directly from budgets allocated for public housing, and the tenacity and courage of people, many of them women, who strive to build and sustain homes for themselves and their families in the face of a brutal and contemptuous state, is instructive.

If we examine Nkandla together with the land occupations named after Marikana in Durban and Cape Town, both of which have been subject to unlawful state violence, it becomes clear that the state and capital are both sites of appropriation and repression, that the workplace and the community are both sites of struggle, and that the wage and the home both remain subject to intense contestation.

As the ANC limps into its decline, sustained by the idea of what it has meant to people rather than its tawdry reality, and buttressed with patronage and repression, there are no credible electoral alternatives.

The DA, together with Cope and AgangSA, offer nothing other than the promise of a less corrupt version of the economic arrangements that continue to condemn millions of people to permanent destitution. None of these parties are willing to allocate land, in rural and urban areas, on the basis of social need rather than private profit – or to put an end to evictions and forced removals.

The EFF claims to subordinate capital to the state. It also tells some of the truth about how, 20 years after apartheid, our society continues to be predicated on highly racialised forms of exploitation and exclusion. But with its deeply compromised leaders – at national and provincial levels – its active attempts to generate a personality cult, its militarism, its masculinism, its crudity, its evident complicity with xenophobia and its profoundly authoritarian conception of the political is what Antonio Gramsci called a “morbid symptom” of our crisis rather than a credible response to it.

Although WASP gets a fair bit of media coverage, often as a result of having a young white woman as a prominent member, the fact is that it, along with parties like Azapo and the PAC, is simply irrelevant to our national drama.

Zuma’s name will go down in history as the name of the moment when it became clear to anyone willing to confront reality directly that the ANC was rotten. But it is a lot less clear whether or not we will be able to build a democratic politics, rooted in the workplace and the community, as well as universities, prisons and sporting and religious organisations, that can affirm the equal humanity of everyone and is organised and sustained at sufficient scale to bring the state and capital to heel."

This is one aspect of the coming election that one finds on the viral stream and the call by Whites and other ethnic minorities that the African majority voting for the ANc should not do so. Yet, the people live and experience what Richouse is talking about. The African people's conundrum and of the optionless alternative handed to the them by other parties is what will bring back the ANC into power. The majority poor have been ''coping' and 'tolerating' the ANC because no one is better or different. The unemployed and poor know that if they replace the ANC, the incoming crew is going to do the same thing because they are not 'morons'.

The Ostrich Act: Burying The Government's Head In The Sand

The Woes and Confusion of and within the ANC are growing larger and louder-since they affect and effect their followers and those they are ruling over.. We learn from Vinayak Bhardwj that:

Beyond Thuli: The Nkandla Fight Goes On

The release of the public protector’s report concludes the third inquiry by a public body into the manifestly wasteful public expenditure on President Zuma’s private residence. Advocate Madonsela’s investigation however, unlike the interministerial task team investigation or that of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence based on it, was unique in its unfettered scope, independence and insistence on tackling the high-ranking officials involved in the so-called Prestige Project A, department of public works’ codename for Zuma’s private estate. This is why her findings carry greater significance than the others.

However, a fourth inquiry conducted by the M&G Centre for Investigative Journalism (amaBhungane) is currently awaiting judgment in the high court in Pretoria. This inquiry emanates from a request for information under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (Paia), brought nearly two years ago by amaBhungane.

The case has been central to the Mail & Guardian’s reportage on Nkandla as it highlights not only the abuse of state resources for private gain, documented painstakingly in over 12 000 pages of minutes, memos, purchase receipts and correspondence which amaBhungane eventually secured from a reluctant department of public works. But it also highlights the extent to which official secrecy on the basis of spurious threats to national security is used by our public officials to prevent embarrassment.

In July 2012, well before the Nkandla scandal broke, amaBhungane lodged a request at the department of public works for information pertaining to public expenditures on President Zuma’s Nkandla home. The request highlighted amaBhungane's interest exclusively in information that was not security-sensitive. The request further pointed out that Paia obliged the department to redact security-related parts of the requested information, while making available the remaining documents.

In its initial response the department rejected the request on the basis of apartheid-era secrecy laws including the National Key Points Act, Protection of Information Act and the Cabinet policy document called “Minimum Information Security Standards”.

No mention was made of a single provision of Paia itself.

Under pressure of litigation, the department eventually capitulated on its initial recalcitrance by releasing 12 000 pages of information.

Unanswered questions
Despite the vast disclosures by the department, there appeared to be significant gaps in the State’s official account of the growing Nkandla debacle. The disclosed documents all derived from the activities of the Department’s Kwazulu-Natal office, which was directly in charge of the project. These painted a picture, of provincial officials, exposed to consultants and contractors for whom cost was no object, agreeing to ever-costlier, ever more wildly unbudgeted ‘upgrades’ to President Zuma’s property. Few, if any senior officials appeared to be directing the process.

Strangely absent from the disclosed records were correspondence and minutes of meetings involving more senior officials and politicians – those who one assumes should have been directing the process from head office in Pretoria, the more so as it involved the president. And thus vital questions pertaining to senior departmental, ministerial and most crucially presidential involvement in the ever-spooling Nkandla yarn remained unanswered.

To answer these questions therefore, amaBhungane persisted with its court action.

In December 2013, amaBhungane’s lawyers argued on the basis of these issues, that the Department was obliged to provide further documents. The Department argued that it had provided the same documents to amaBhungane that it had provided to Advocate Madonsela, that its search had been exhaustive and that any supposedly missing documents either did not exist or had been misplaced.

Oral evidence
AmaBhungane’s lawyers refuted these arguments. They argued that given the previous duplicity by the department’s director-general, arguing initially that all information was security-sensitive only to release 12 000 documents without any apparent declassification, the department’s account simply could not be trusted. They then requested that the judge refer the matter to oral evidence on the basis of a legal rule known as “Plascon-Evans”.

According to this rule, if there is a significant dispute of facts between two parties, a judge may refer the matter to oral evidence. This will allow amaBhungane’s lawyers to cross-examine senior officials about the whereabouts of the missing records..

Consequences for failing to appear before court or for lying under oath during a cross-examination may result in public officials being found guilty of contempt of court. Their room for manoeuvre is therefore limited.

The alternative to this scenario, is that the Judge orders these missing documents to be provided to amaBhungane. This too could extend further the public’s knowledge.

In this sense, the public’s right to know might well be advanced further than it already will be through the public protector’s inquiry.

The battle against secrecy however has not been amaBhungane’s alone. The public protector’s own investigation was filibustered late last year when the security cluster sought to abuse a “right of reply” process to thwart her investigation altogether. They claimed that the information in her report revealed “numerous breaches” of security while failing to indicate even one.

They further argued that the report revealed classified information which would compromise national security and that of the president. In supporting her case, she provided as evidence the department’s claim that it had provided to her exactly the same set of documents to her that it provided to us. It could not therefore argue that the very same documents which were made publicly available were now top secret in the hands of the public protector.

The security cluster was once more chastened into an uneasy silence.

The painstaking attempts by journalists, activist organisations and Chapter Nine institutions to unearth the details of the Nkandla story have revealed the power of our laws in counteracting the State’s secrecy reflex.

Hanging over these attempts however is the ever-present threat of the “secrecy Bill” currently awaiting the president’s signature before becoming law.

Among its many pernicious provisions, the Bill will allow the state to determine rules for access to classified information for Chapter Nine institutions, including the public protector. What was previously withheld by foot-dragging will be impenetrably fortified by Draconian legislation.

A very renowned journalist, Allister sparks presented this article he titled:

Nkandla Worse Than Watergate

This is worse than Watergate; worse even than the Muldergate scandal of the apartheid era, which led to the demise of Information Minister Connie Mulder and eventually Prime Minister John Vorster.

Those were global landmarks of political notoriety. But now they have been surpassed by President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandlagate. It is more outrageous and despicable by far.

I say this because Watergate and Muldergate were about political skulduggery. President Richard Nixon condoned the burglary at Washington’s Watergate Hotel to get his hands on his political opponent’s campaign plans ahead of an election. Mulder and his cohorts misused taxpayers’ money trying to buy journalists and whole newspapers to “tell the good story” of apartheid South Africa.

They cheated and lied for political reasons.

Nkandlagate is about personal greed and moral shamelessness. It is about looting public money so that one man and his family can live in extravagant opulence for the rest of their lives – amid some of his people’s most abject poverty.

As Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s report reveals, Zuma’s grandiose estate, set in R10 million worth of landscape gardening covering the size of eight-and-a-half soccer pitches, is in an area populated by 114 416 of some of the country’s poorest people.

Forty percent of them are unemployed. Only 10 000 households have electricity, 7 000 have no access to piped water and 12 000 are still using pit latrines.

Where are those zealous young ANC poo-throwers now?

Worst of all, though, is the fact that the ANC, its national executive committee and its cabinet, are going to stand by this flawed leader. At least Nixon had the decency to resign over Watergate, as did Mulder and eventually Vorster.

That is what Zuma should do if he wants to save any honour for himself, his party and his country.

It would, of course, be a tough call for any ruling party to dump its leader just six weeks before a national election. But they could do so soon after May 7.

I hope so, because to cling to Zuma for another five years would be disastrous for the ANC. Nkandla isn’t going to go away, just as the arms deal scandal hasn’t. Nor will the Guptagate affair. Zuma is tainted beyond redemption and if the ANC leadership decides to rally around him come hell or high water, all its ministers and other senior officials will have to keep obfuscating, lying and deceiving the public for the next five years, by which time they will themselves all be morally corrupted. Which would mean the disintegration of the party.[Which is precisely what they are doing now and the end is sealed-my addition]

And let me say this. Critical though I have been of the Zuma ANC these past few years, it is obviously still the party of the majority of our people, so that its precipitous disintegration would be disastrous for the country.

I believe the ANC is on its way out, because it is strife-torn, has grown tired and is bereft of fresh ideas. But it will be a gradual, incremental decline which will ensure stability through the transition.

A sudden disintegration could lead to chaos. I hope Zuma realises that and acts as he should.

Meanwhile, there is the question of whether Zuma lied to Parliament, which is an impeachable offence, when he told the National Assembly that he and his family had built their own Nkandla homes and that the state had not built any or benefited them. As Madonsela has found, this was not true.

But she declined to make a finding on the question of lying because, she says, Zuma claims he was thinking only about the houses, not the array of other structures that had been added at state expense, such as a visitors’ centre, a cattle kraal, chicken run, swimming pool, an amphitheatre and a string of other expensive amenities.

It may, she says, have been “a bona fide mistake”.

After a close reading of Madonsela’s lengthy and meticulously detailed report, I think that was a generous decision.

The core fault in the Nkandla affair is that it was undertaken as a “cost-shared project”. Before he became president, Zuma decided to upgrade his private home in rural KwaZulu-Natal, which at the time consisted of a few rondavels surrounded by a ramshackle fence. He took out a bond, engaged an architect and a quantity surveyor, and work began on building three new homes the architect designed for him.

After becoming president, standing rules required that this property be provided with prescribed security facilities.

The work had to be supervised by the police and defence forces and paid for by the state. But at Zuma’s insistence his private architect, Minenhle Makhanya, was appointed architect and principal agent for the whole project, in other words the on-the-ground boss of the whole enterprise – without the job having been put out to tender, as required, and without a thought being given to the obvious conflict of interests that might be involved.

Here was the president’s private architect in control of a project in which costs had to be shared between Zuma as his primary employer and the state. With everyone else involved eager to please Number One, the door was obviously wide open for costs to be slipped from one account to the other.

Thus a “safe haven” for the president required by the regulations, which could have been built inside the main house for R500 000, ballooned into an elaborate underground bunker accessible by special lifts from all three of the houses with a secret exit at a total cost R14 million.

Similar escalations happened across the board resulting, in Madonsela’s words, “in substantial value being unduly added to the president’s private property”. Even allowing for the bona fide mistake, can anyone believe Zuma was unaware of this?

That is how the costs of a project initially estimated at R27m swelled to R246m. That is a tenfold, or 1 000 percent, overrun. Madonsela has described it as “unconscionable”. Yet nobody directly involved in the project asked any questions.

Madonsela has excoriated them, including some ministers and whole organs of state, saying they “failed dismally” and finds some guilty of unlawful and improper conduct and maladministration.

But what about the president? He was Number One in this project, officially referred to as “The Principal”. He received many reports, was kept informed by his architect, paid several visits to the work site, even sometimes issued instructions about changes he wanted made.

It is inconceivable that he never noticed the whole project was going over the top to such an extravagant and highly visible degree.

Madonsela seems to think so too. She says there is no evidence he ever asked about costs.

“It is my considered view,” she adds, “that he tacitly accepted the implementation of all measures at his residence and has unduly benefited from the enormous capital investment from the non-security installations at his private residence.”

This failure to act was a serious breach of the Executive Ethics Code and amounted to “conduct that is inconsistent with his office as a member of the cabinet”.

Quite clearly Zuma didn’t want to know. In his world there is a notice on his desk saying: “The buck bypasses here?”

- Allister Sparks is a veteran journalist and political commentator.

LIVE STREAM: The ANC responds to Thuli Madonsela's Nkandla Report

Denial, Obfuscation and Spin

As the dust from Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s 447-page report into the expenditure on President Jacob Zuma’s private homestead in Nkandla refuses to settle and calls for his impeachment grow louder, Lee Rondganger compares some of the government’s spin before the report’s release, to what it actually found.

Durban - Renovations to President Zuma’s private residence in Nkandla were first highlighted by newspapers in 2009. It was estimated at the time that renovations to his estate would cost R65 million.

Then that estimate swelled to R206m. Now it is R246m.

Along the way, a few members of Zuma’s cabinet, and the national police commissioner, rallied around the embattled president and sought to justify the expenditure. They still differ with the public protector’s finding that some of the improvements had no security use at all.

* In his address to Parliament in November 2012 after the Nkandla scandal broke, President Jacob Zuma said his family had built its own houses and no public funds were used on any homes on the homestead.

He said he and his family paid for the construction, and that he was still paying off a mortgage bond.

Quirky Political Spin On Nkandla By the ANC

Zuma said the only money spent by the government on his home was for security features, including fencing, bullet-proof windows and a bunker.

“I was advised that the security upgrades were... necessary in terms of the National Key Points Act,” he said.

Madonsela found:

“This was not true,” Madonsela found.

However, she said: “I have accepted the evidence that he addressed Parliament in good faith and was not thinking about the Visitors’ Centre but his family dwellings when he made the statement.”

* Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi, whose department was responsible for the Nkandla upgrade, met the media on Sunday January 26, 2013, with the findings of an internal task team that investigated the expenditure in Nkandla.

Nxesi – with Justice Minister Jeff Radebe and State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele – insisted Zuma had not been aware of the cost or details of the work.

“Was the president involved?” asked Radebe.

“The answer is no. No money of the state was used for the upgrade of the private residence of the president. There were irregularities, in this instance the manner in which officials in the Department of Public Works procured these services, and all those implicated officials, the law enforcement agencies are going to take their course to find those people involved in order to be accountable for that,” Radebe said.

Madonsela found:

“Regarding President Zuma’s conduct in respect of the use of state funds in the Nkandla project, on the only evidence currently available, the President failed to apply his mind to the contents of the declaration of his private residence as a National Key Point and specifically failed to implement security measures at own cost as directed by it. It is my considered view that the President, as the head of South Africa Incorporated, was wearing two hats, that of the ultimate guardian of the resources of the people of South Africa and that of being a beneficiary of public privileges of some of the guardians of public power and state resources, but failed to discharge his responsibilities in terms of the latter. I believe the President should have ideally asked questions regarding the scale, cost and affordability of the Nkandla project”.

* Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa, at the same press conference, said the reason for the security upgrade was that of the security threat assessment for any project for any public officer, whether it was a minister or president.

“At the point of the assessment, the conclusion then becomes that these are the kind of things you need and that has to be achieved. Now, whether that would be justifiable or not, I would say, yes. In this case, threat assessment was such that all the things which have been pointed out here were said to be needed in that process.”

Madonsela found:

“The implementation of the security measures failed to comply with the parameters set out in the laws in question for the proper exercise of such authority. The key violation in this regard is the failure to follow the processes outlined in the cabinet policy and the deviation from the 16 security measures that were recommended in the Second Security Evaluation by the SAPS. This constitutes improper conduct and maladministration. With the National Key Points Act having been inexplicably dragged in halfway through the implementation of the Nkandla Project, its provisions had to be complied with. This did not happen. Neither was there compliance with the contents of the declaration of the Nkandla residence as a National Key Point, as signed by the Minister of Police on 08 April, 2010.”

* ANC spokesman, Jackson Mthembu, responding to the government cluster press conference said the report “vindicates the president and our belief in the (his) innocence on what he consistently said were lies and that he personally built his residence and that the government only built security features that are prescribed”.

Madonsela found:

That the Department of Public Works had implemented a number of the measures, including buildings and other items constructed and installed by the department that went beyond what was reasonably required for his security.

“Measures that should never have been implemented as they are neither provided for in the regulatory instruments… include the construction inside the President’s residence of a Visitors’ Centre; an expensive cattle kraal with a culvert and chicken run; a swimming pool; an amphitheatre; marquee area; some of the extensive paving; and the relocation of neighbours who used to form part of the original homestead, at an enormous cost to the state.

“Measures that are not expressly provided for, but could have been discretionally implemented in a manner that benefits the broader community, include helipads and a private clinic.

“The failure to explore more economic and community-inclusive options to accommodate the discretional security-related needs constitutes improper conduct and maladministration”.

* On December 19, 2013, Ministers of the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cluster (JCPS) and Minister of Public Works, Thulas Nxesi, released the Task Team Report – that was originally classified – on matters relating to the security upgrade at President Jacob Zuma’s private residence in Nkandla.

National police commissioner, Riah Phiyega, explained that in rural areas people had “no fire extinguishers or fire brigades”.

She said the “best we know is to take a bucket, dip it in water and throw it on the fire”.

It was, she said, not a swimming pool but a fire pool.

Lieutenant-General Vijay Ramlakan, the retired surgeon-general who represented the defence force, confirmed that there was “what is referred to in the media” as a swimming pool, but that the department of defence’s original request had been “translated by public works engineers into what is there”.

The chicken run was created to replace a number of “building block” structures which were obstructions and “potential hiding areas for intruders”, said Nxesi.

“The relocation of these loose structures to a dedicated area improved the security on site,” said Nxesi.

The cattle kraal and culvert were important for security the task team found.

False alarms as well as damage to the fence and sensitive electronic equipment could be caused by the cattle.

“The cattle and people were using the same entrance due to the location of the kraal posing a potential risk in the high security area,” said Nxesi.

Regarding the air conditioning, Ramlakan said: “Anybody who has had to be (in a room) with bulletproof windows will know those windows cannot be easily opened”.

It was for this reason, he said, that air conditioning was necessary.

Madonsela found:

There was no fire pool but a “swimming pool”, she said adding that President Jacob Zuma improperly benefited from measures implemented in the name of security, but which included “non-security comforts” like the Visitors’ Centre, swimming pool, cattle kraal and culvert, chicken run and amphitheatre as well as the brick-and-mortar clinic on the homestead’s doorstep.

The Zuma family benefited from the “substantial value being unduly added” to the president’s private property, she said.

Costs of the non-security installation (those not identified by the two state security assessment) should be born by Zuma and his family, including for the Visitors’ Centre, swimming pool, cattle kraal and culvert, chicken run and amphitheatre.

In August last year, Zuma indicated he would pay for the cattle kraal as he had asked for a larger one to be built.

We therefore learn from the following SAPA report titled:

"South Africa: Timeline Reported Political Killings From 2007 -2012

Govan Mbeki municipality deputy mayor Thandi Mtsweni was killed in Secunda, Mpumalanga for allegedly investigating tender irregularities.

She was shot dead by two gunmen when she arrived home with her husband and 14-year-old son.

The municipality's mayor Sipho Nkosi was arrested for allegedly hiring hitmen to kill her.

- January 4, 2009

Mbombela municipality speaker Jimmy Mohlala, who blew the whistle on alleged corruption in a 2010 construction project was shot dead in his Nelspruit house.

Mohlala had blown the whistle on Mbombela municipal manager Jacob Dladla who was accused of manipulating 2010 construction contracts.

Mohlala was also investigating a fraud case involving a company belonging to Bobby Motaung, Kaizer Chiefs football club chairman, which was responsible for the construction of the Mbombela Stadium.

- January 22, 2009

Inkosi Mbongeleni Zondi, the grandson of a famous Zulu King and a strong ally of ANC president Jacob Zuma, was shot dead in Durban's Umlazi township.

Zondi was travelling along Stimela Avenue when his car was sprayed with bullets.

- January 22, 2009

The chairman of the ANC Youth League in Umgababa on the south coast of KwaZulu-Natal, Sthembiso Cele, was shot.

He was shot through the window of his house. He was taken to hospital but died the next day.

- January 31, 2009

ANC leader Bongani Ngcobo was shot in Nongoma in northern KwaZulu-Natal.

Ngcobo was allegedly shot by an Inkatha Freedom Party councillor in full view of his colleagues at the ANC offices in that area.

- March 5, 2009

ANC member Jabulani Khumalo was shot dead in Nongoma, northern KwaZulu-Natal.

He was shot outside the gate of St Benedictine Hospital where he worked.

IFP councillor Hezekiah 'Fish' Ngwenya was arrested for Khumalo's murder.

- March 14, 2009

North West municipal councillor Moss Phakoe was shot dead outside his home in Rustenburg.

This was after handing over a dossier detailing corruption in the municipality to high-ranking ANC officials, including secretary general Gwede Mantashe and Zuma.

Former Rustenburg mayor Matthews Wolmarans and his bodyguard were arrested and jailed for Phakoe's murder.

- January 8, 2010

Sammy Mpatlanyane, the spokesman for the Mpumalanga department of culture, sport and recreation was gunned down in his house in Nelspruit.

His murder was blamed on the same people who killed Mohlala.

- October 8, 2010

Controversial Mpumalanga politician James Nkambule was found dead. He collapsed and died at his home in Mjindini.

Nkandla: ANC's Corruption a la Carte: Repression Repressed And Intensified

The real story will still be told about the corruption of Nkandla involving the President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma. But a much more urgent issue needs to be attended_ The ANC's Corruption and Vulture tactics. As we get to the point of fully discussing the corruption of the ANC and within the ANC, I would like to use the article by Pierre De Vos who wrote the following in an article he titled:

Nkandla - Unlawful To The Last

The Report of the Public Protector on the use of public funds on lavish construction at President Jacob Zuma’s private home near Nkandla found that there was no legal authority for the spending of R246 million on the Nkandla Project. Despite suggestions to the contrary, neither the applicable Cabinet Policy nor the National Key Points Act were complied with by the various state actors involved in the project.

Although the Public Protector (circumspect to a fault) did not make a conclusive finding on this, her Report suggests that those involved in the Nkandla scandal were at first unconcerned about whether they were legally authorised to spend public funds on the construction at President Zuma’s private home.

Because it was the president’s house, the legal niceties seemed to have been of little or no concern to them. It only seemed to have become a concern when they had to account for their actions and when they realised that the president, unsurprisingly, was not going to take responsibility for the project and was not going to protect them against the fall-out from the scandal.

The Report found that most of those involved in the implementation of the Nkandla Project had no knowledge of the relevant legal provisions applicable to the project. Most of them invoked the Ministerial Handbook (which the Public Protector found was not applicable to the project) as legal authority for the project.

Instead, two other legal documents (had they been complied with) would have authorised some (but not all) of the cost of the construction at President Zuma’s private home.

First, the “Cabinet Policy: Security Measures at the Private Residences of the president, Deputy President and former Presidents and Deputy Presidents”, which was approved on 20 August 2003, allows for the spending of public funds on security measures at private properties that are owned and regularly used by the president.

This Policy provides that at the request of the president or the Presidency, the SAPS, together with the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) (now the State Security Agency) must evaluate the security situation of such a property, based on a threat analysis conducted by the NIA.

The SAPS and the NIA then have to formulate a proposal on appropriate security measures that should be put in place by the State after which the Department of Public Works (DPW) has to prepare cost estimates of implementing these measures.

“Thereafter, the SAPS have to advise the Minister of Police on the proposed safety measures, including the cost thereof. Whatever measures are accordingly approved by the Minister of Police shall be communicated to the president for his or her consent. The SAPS then has to submit the measures, as approved by the president to the Minister of Public Works for approval of the structural components.”

However, the Public Protector found that none of these requirements were complied with (apart from two security evaluations that were conducted by the SAPS). There was no indication that the evaluations were conducted jointly with NIA (SSA), casting doubt on the intelligence estimates on which the SAPS recommendations for security upgrades were made.

It is unclear why – if the security of the president and indeed the Republic was at stake – the NIA was not at all involved in the evaluation of the security risk faced by President Zuma at his private home.

Regarding the flouting of the Cabinet Policy, the Public Protector further found that:

“The Minister of Police probably did not inform the president and requested his consent, as he was required to have done in terms of the Policy, because he was not advised accordingly by the SAPS.”

The Public Protector consequently found that the Cabinet Policy was not complied with “and therefore did not constitute legal authority for the expenditure incurred by the DPW in respect of the Nkandla Project”.

The failure to follow the processes outlined in the Cabinet Policy and the deviation from the security measures that were recommended in the security evaluation done by SAPS was thus found to constitute “improper conduct and maladministration”.

Curiously, halfway through the project, on 8 April 2010, the president’s private residence was declared a National Key Point in terms of the National Key Points Act by the Minister of Police.

No finding was made about why the Nkandla residence was declared a National Key Point at this late stage and whether this was done in an attempt to draw a veil of secrecy over the construction project. (Recall that Ministers in the Security Cluster initially refused to answer questions about the project by invoking the National Key Points Act.)

The relevant Declaration Certificate issued by the Minister of Police on 8 April 2010 in terms of the National Key Points Act declaring the president’s private residence at Nkandla a National Key Point informed the president that he was obliged to take measures at his own cost and to the satisfaction of the Minister “to prevent or counter subversion, espionage and sabotage”.

As the Cabinet Policy was not complied with and therefore did not constitute legal authority for the expenditure incurred by the DPW in respect of the Nkandla Project, the declaration of the president’s private residence as a National Key Point on 8 April 2010 therefore had the result that as from that date, he was required to secure his private residence at his own cost. “His failure to do so without reasonable cause would have constituted a criminal offence” in terms of the Key Point Act.

Curiously, the acknowledgement of receipt of this declaration in the Presidency is dated 7 April 2011, exactly a year after it was sent. Whether this delay speaks to administrative chaos inside the Presidency or to a more nefarious motive to delay incurring a formal legal obligation to pay for the cost of security upgrades in terms of the Act, is not answered in the Report.

The Declaration sent by the Minister of Police was in line with Section 3 of the National Key Points Act, which provides that on receipt of the notice, the owner, after consultation with the Minister of Police, has to take steps at his/her own expense and to the satisfaction of the Minister in respect of the security of the place.

It is common cause that the president did not implement any security measures in respect of his private residence, as was required of him in terms of section 3 of this Act. This means that the legal position is therefore that the National Key Points Act was not complied with. The expenditure incurred by the DPW in respect of the Nkandla Project – in as far as the National Key Points Act was applicable – was accordingly irregular.

The Public Protector did not make any finding on whether the president was prima facie guilty of a criminal offence for failing to secure the National Key Point as required by the Act.

It must however be noted that in terms of the Act the Minister of Police could, in terms of section 3A of the National Key Points Act, have taken over the duties of the president to secure his residence as a National Key Point, on his behalf and with his consent. In such a case, the president was liable for the cost of the steps taken, to the extent determined by the minister.

This was never done. As the Public Protector points out:

“I requested the Minister of Police on several occasions during the investigation to submit the relevant documents and/or correspondence indicating that the president was informed of the actions taken by the Minister as far as securing his private residence was concerned, that he consented to it, that a decision was taken accordingly and that he was informed of his liability for the costs involved.

No such documents and/or correspondence could be provided and I could find no evidence or indication that the minister invoked the provisions of section 3A of the National Key Points Act at any time.”

There was also no explanation of why the Minister of Police's order, issued with the declaration of President Zuma’s private home as a National Key Point, that the president himself had to pay for security upgrades at Nkandla was ignored.

It may be that after the order was made, the president refused to obey the law and to carry the cost. It may also be that the order was never meant to be taken seriously but was merely issued to provide a smokescreen, creating the impression that the president would pay for all security related upgrades. It may also be that all concerned had forgotten about the order or discovered after it was made that the construction at Nkandla may legally be justified by invoking the Cabinet Policy discussed above.

As I tried to make clear, the Report of the Public Protector does not answer all the questions relating to the unlawful and unauthorized expenditure of R246 million on President Zuma’s private home. Most of the unanswered questions can only be answered by the president or by his closest allies in the Cabinet. If the president and Ministers in the Security Cluster were to take their constitutional obligation to account for their actions seriously, they would attempt to answer these questions.

But they probably never will. (DM)

Blocking, obfuscating, spin, lying, stalling, disinformation, breaking the laws, creating secrete handbooks of rules and regulations that contravene the government's own laws and ethics, has been and still is, and will continue to be the modus operandi of the ANC after before, during and after the elections.

The articles above paint a picture of a rogue and vulture capitalist ANC which governs outside the law and constitution, and it is in fact a carte blanche laisez faire of looting and living in opulence, unashamedly. This is done with arrogance and mien unequalled in Africa, since Africa became independent from colonial rule.

But in ANc's case, what we are also witnessing is a group of powerful potentates who are hell-bnet on defending everything wrong that is pointed out to them, and in cases that this is not quelled, they resort to intimidation, isolation, assassinations(which will be dealt with below) and many other covert actions that have a chilling effect on its intended victims, and a free reign for the ANC. We learn more about this reality from the African centered perspective of 'Sbu below.

The Stealthy/Silent(Covert/Overt) Repression Of The Poor By The ANC

The Poor Are Punished For Demanding Our Constitutional Rights

We are informed by Sbu Zikode that:

"The word 'democracy' has often been misunderstood. It has been misused to legitimise certain projects in a way that is incorrect and misleading. For many shack dwellers and other poor people in South Africa, democracy has meant free corruption for members of the ruling party, a life mired in the mud and fire of shacks, illegal evictions and forced removals to transit camps.

For the e-Thekwini Municipality, democracy means that they are a law unto themselves and can act in total disregard of the rule of law. The poor are automatically viewed as criminals even when we act within the law. For those of us who have organised to defend the dignity of the poor, democracy has come to mean death threats, torture, arrest, violence and assassination.

This has been evident in Cato Crest in Durban between September 2013 and January 2014. Violence from the ruling party is worse in Durban than in other cities, but state violence is everywhere in South Africa. The Marikana Land Occupation in East Phillipi in Cape Town has been met with state violence just like the Marikana Land Occupation in Cato Crest. Everywhere in Sou