South African Public Works and Infrastructure Minister Dean Macpherson has stated that taxpayers will not be responsible for the general maintenance of former President Jacob Zuma's private Nkandla residence. This response came after a parliamentary question from former MK party MP Pumlani Kubukeli, who asked about the condition of Zuma's KwaZulu-Natal residence and the department's role in its maintenance.
Kubukeli's questions were submitted before his expulsion from the party late last month. He inquired whether Macpherson was aware of the alleged deterioration of Zuma's residence due to the department's failure to conduct regular maintenance. Kubukeli also questioned why the property, designated as a National Key Point, had not received regular maintenance and whether President Cyril Ramaphosa's intervention was necessary.
Macpherson rejected the premise that maintaining the private property was the department's responsibility. He emphasized that the state's responsibility was limited to security-related infrastructure, citing former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's 2014 "Secure in Comfort" report. The report investigated the use of public money for upgrades at Zuma's private residence and found that R246m of public funds had been improperly spent.
According to Macpherson, the report found that expenditure on several measures installed by the department of public works at the request of security agencies went beyond what was reasonably required for Zuma's security, resulting in excessive public expenditure. The Constitutional Court subsequently held in 2016 that several improvements identified by the public protector were nonsecurity features and that Zuma had to contribute towards their costs.
Macpherson stated that the nonsecurity upgrades should never have been the department's responsibility. He emphasized that how Zuma wishes to maintain his property is entirely within his discretion and not the responsibility of the state. The department, Macpherson said, was aware of its obligations regarding security at national key points and the private residences of former heads of state.
The minister clarified that maintenance work at the private residences of all former presidents was limited to security installations as determined and requested by the South African Police Service. This, he said, allowed state resources to be dedicated to physical security, access control, and operational support, such as housing for protection personnel.
Macpherson concluded that there had been no failure by his department that would require Ramaphosa's intervention. He added that if there was any confusion, Zuma was welcome to contact the presidency or his office for further clarity. The upgrades to Zuma's Nkandla homestead became a major political and legal dispute during his presidency, with Madonsela's report finding that Zuma and his family had unduly benefited from upgrades that went beyond legitimate security requirements.
Key points
- Taxpayers will not cover maintenance costs for Jacob Zuma's private Nkandla residence.
- The state's responsibility is limited to security-related infrastructure at former presidents' residences.
- Zuma repaid about R7.8m towards the cost of nonsecurity upgrades in 2016.
