"There's just too much controversy around Nkandla... The project turned out not to be what we had in mind."
|||Johannesburg - The future of a R1 billion “smart town” which was to be built in President Jacob Zuma’s rural neighbourhood now hangs in the balance after a key funder pulled out, saying the reason was that Nkandla was “too controversial”.
The company was involved in a joint venture with the Masibambisane Rural Development Initiative (MRDI), chaired by Zuma and his cousin Deebo Mzobe, to build the town, sited just a few kilometres from Zuma’s homestead.
To be known as the Umlalazi-Nkandla Smart Growth Centre, it would consist of a shopping centre, a school, a further education and training college, small factory units, expansion of the Nxamalala Clinic and agri-processing facilities.
Company spokesman Keith Warmback told the Sunday Tribune that they had decided to withdraw from the project.
“There’s just too much controversy around Nkandla and too much interference. The project turned out not to be what we had in mind,” said Warmback, without elaborating.
In a previous interview, Warmback said the project was “70 percent confirmed” and needed only “final institutional decisions and approvals” before building began.
This week he said, “The president has nothing to do with our decision. We were only going to get involved if it made financial sense. From what we’ve seen it doesn’t.”
Zuma’s cousin, Mzobe, could not be reached for comment.
On Friday the Mail & Guardian, quoting Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s provisional findings, reported that Zuma derived substantial personal benefit from works that exceeded security needs at his Nkandla homestead and must repay the state.
Madonsela’s report said a swimming pool, a visitors’ centre, an amphitheatre, a cattle kraal, a marquee area, extensive paving and new houses for relocated relatives had all been improperly included in the security upgrade at enormous cost to taxpayers.
Government spokesperson Phumla Williams said yesterday the security cluster ministers, who met Madonsela on Friday, did not consider the leaked provisional report to be authentic, as Madonsela had distanced herself from it.
“The ministers met Madonsela to establish whether the report published was her own, and she has said it is not her report. The question then was: ‘How do we respond to a report which did not have an author?’
“We would prefer to respond when the Public Protector releases an authentic report,” Williams said.
Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa’s spokesman Zweli Mnisi did not respond to questions on whether the leak of the provisional report had compromised the security of the president.
Mthethwa – in court papers in which the ministers tried to block Madonsela’s release of the provisional report – was critical of Madonsela’s knowledge of security matters. He claimed Madonsela was no security expert and as such, “could not be the arbiter on whether or not there exists a security breach from the contents of the provisional report”.
“I think you should ask that question to the custodian of the report, on what impact the leak has had on the entire process.
“On whether any action will be taken, from an investigation perspective, she can best advise if she will take any action as we cannot instruct her on how to manage such purported leaks,” Mnisi said.
He added that the government had been consistent in co-operating with Madonsela’s investigation.
Madonsela said the issue of whether the “purported leak of the provisional report” had compromised the security of the president did not come up during the meeting.
“What the ministers asked was whether this was our provisional report, but it is not.
“We have not released the provisional report so we don’t know about the one published by the Mail & Guardian,” she said.
Madonsela added that her provisional report would be released to affected parties before Christmas. – Additional reporting by staff reporters
Sunday Independent