Tafelberg Short: Nkandla - The end of Zuma?. City PressЧитать онлайн книгу.
what we are doing. He dedicates a couple of days a year to meet with the people working in Masibambisane.”
In June 2013, there was widespread outrage when it emerged that almost R900 million from different government departments had been pledged to a new food-security programme administered by Masibambisane at a meeting at the presidential guesthouse in Pretoria.
The Department of Rural Development released an annual report in September 2013 which showed that R65.2 million was channelled to a “food-security programme” run by the Independent Development Trust (IDT). The IDT was a partner and funder of Masibambisane and a source confirmed that the money was meant for projects linked to Masibambisane. Mzobe denied receiving any money from the IDT. He said it had its own food-security projects that it implemented on behalf of government.
Then, in October of that year, Rural Affairs Minister Gugile Nkwinti for the first time opened up about the controversial Masibambisane development.
Nkwinti, whose department had been closely associated with the project, in effect accused Masibambisane of hijacking rural-development initiatives. “It was the way it was managed and the way it has been projected. It is out of order,” he told City Press at a media breakfast organised by the presidency.
In an interview with City Press at the same function, Zuma defended his role, saying he was “doing this as Jacob Zuma, not as the president”. He said because he was an elder, people respected him in the area. “It is an initiative from the peasants in the rural areas,” he said.
But Nkwinti lashed out at the handling of the project. “What is happening in reality is that our department puts up fences. It is our department that does the work,” he said. “But at the launches of each initiative it was projected as if Masibambisane did all the work.”
“For me, it is a great initiative from the community,” he added. Rural development even designed a model for the project. But when the Masibambisane project moved to the Free State and Limpopo, “it assumed a different character, which is not what the president wanted to see”. He said the idea was that the community should be driving the development, but instead it turned into a top-down project.
Another source in the department said “I can tell you now, people are not happy in the department. We have a mandate, but we are running around doing workshops for Masibambisane. At first it was an Nkandla thing, and then suddenly when questions were being asked about the president’s home town getting preferential treatment, it had to be rolled out all over the country.”
The official said the department was running around to do Masibambisane projects while the NGO was getting the credit. “People are talking, but you can’t question too much if the sentiment is that this is coming from Number One (Zuma) himself.”
Shortly thereafter, City Press revealed that both the departments of agriculture and rural development had decided to cut ties with Zuma’s nongovernmental organisation (NGO).
Instead, Zuma launched a new food policy called Fetsa Tlala in Kuruman in Northern Cape, run by the Department of Agriculture without the help of Masibambisane.
At that time, Joemat-Pettersson, backtracking again, insisted her department had not given Zuma’s NGO a cent. “All departments that have funded (Masibambisane) must audit them,” she said, adding that she did not know whohad funded it.
“If I had given them money, the first thing I would have demanded was an audit.
“Masibambisane was never (the Department of) Agriculture’s baby,” she insisted.
“It was more (the Department of) Rural Development,” she said. “It rolled over into Agriculture; before that it was Rural Development. Rural Development would come to my department and say ‘Mzobe says blah, blah, blah’. I would then say: ‘Who is Mzobe? He is not part of my department?’ That is not what I do.”
Mzobe steadfastly denied the private NGO received government funding. But this was refuted by confirmation that various government entities, including the Eastern Cape government, Public Works, the IDC and the IDT, boosted Masibambisane.
By mid 2013, Zumaville had become tangled in red tape and opposition from local residents.
The environmental impact assessment (EIA) was turned down by the Department of Environmental Affairs. The basic assessment submitted to the department lacked a waste-management plan and approval to proceed with the project was withheld.
In addition, consultants and officials of the Department of Rural Development had to placate Nxamalala Inkosi Vela Shange and a committee of izinduna from his traditional authority to try and break a deadlock with local people. Residents of Shange’s area made it clear they were not willing to move out of their homes. The more than 20 families say they do not want their family graves – some of which are centuries old – uprooted to make way for shops and offices.
“We have held a meeting with Mzobe and made it clear that we don’t want a town here,” one man, who asked not to be named, said during the meeting. They were also worried that this new development would bring crime to the area.
Meanwhile, residents of Nxamalala also said Mzobe had been “out of favour” with the president for some time. “We are not sure what the issue is, but it’s an open secret here that they are no longer on such good terms,” said one who spoke on condition of anonymity.
By encouraging the development of Zumaville, a stone’s throw away from his already majestic compound in Nkandla, Zuma was showing a shocking inability to read public perception.
His supporters made the emotive argument that rural development is a cornerstone of the Zuma presidency and therefore Zumaville should be encouraged rather than criticised.
At face value, supporters of Zumaville had a point.
An increasing number of South Africans are becoming urbanised. This leads to the increasing impoverishment of rural communities despite the discovery that the promise of cities is often false.
Developing rural areas so they can sustain themselves as economically viable options is important and adds to the quality of life there without the alienation that comes with the displacement of those who arrive in the cities for the first time. Rural development is part of the continuum that must include the creation of new towns and cities to meet South Africa’s development and population-growth trajectory.
However, prioritising one’s own backyard for development betrays a lack of class and statesmanship. It is shameless. He is president of the whole of South Africa, not just of the people of Nkandla.
The probe
In October 2012, as questions mounted about the state splurge on Nkandla, Parliament decided that the Public Works department’s report into the matter should be tabled before the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, which made it secret.
However, Public Protector Thuli Madonsela confirmed that she would investigate the state’s spend on Nkandla. She derives powers under section 8 of the Public Protector Act. Madonsela said her office had started taking steps to investigate because of a complaint lodged with her office a few months previously. DA parliamentary leader Lindiwe Mazibuko then lodged another complaint.
Madonsela’s probe came at a time when Zuma was campaigning to be re-elected as ANC president in December of that year. She has always been fearless in her probes of high-profile politicians, including Zuma, who she found against in 2010 for his failure to declare his financial interests. This probe, however, was beset with administrative pitfalls.
“Because of our resource constraints, the investigation hasn’t gone further than contacting the presidency,” Madonsela said right at the start. “We are asking the presidency who makes what decisions and who is accountable. This involves more than just Public Works.”
By mid 2013, in a ploy as sinister as it was cynical, Minister of State Security, Siyabonga Cwele, invoked the Minimum Information Security Standards to withhold from public scrutiny (including that of the Public Protector and the Auditor-General) its report on the