Jacob Zuma Foundation Demands Government Action Over Nkandla Maintenance and Former President’s Benefits

Lerato Mrali Published 15 hours ago

5 min read

Add PrimeTime News as a preferred source on Google

The Jacob Zuma Foundation has called on the Presidency and the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure to ensure that government policies governing the treatment and support of former heads of state are fully implemented for former president Jacob Zuma.

The foundation raised concerns about the maintenance of Zuma’s Nkandla residence in KwaZulu-Natal, including its security infrastructure, and questioned whether the government was meeting its responsibilities towards the former president.

The demand comes as Zuma recovers in hospital in Pietermaritzburg following a reported illness during an electioneering trip in KwaZulu-Natal.

Foundation Questions Government’s Commitment

Foundation spokesperson Mzwanele Manyi said the government should demonstrate its commitment to Zuma’s well-being through practical measures rather than statements of concern.

Manyi argued that the maintenance of former presidents’ residences forms part of the support provided for under Cabinet policy. He alleged that Zuma’s Nkandla residence was not receiving the same level of maintenance as the residences of other former presidents.

The foundation has therefore urged the Presidency and the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure to address the matter and ensure that the relevant policies are applied.

Manyi questioned why Nkandla was allegedly being neglected and suggested that political differences could be influencing how Zuma was being treated. However, this remains the foundation’s allegation and has not been established as fact.

Public Works Minister Rejects Claims of Neglect

Public Works and Infrastructure Minister Dean Macpherson has rejected the allegation that his department is failing to maintain the security infrastructure at Nkandla.

Macpherson said the department maintains security infrastructure for former heads of state in accordance with its legal responsibilities. He disputed the foundation’s position on the extent of maintenance required, arguing that the department was not legally permitted to maintain Zuma’s private residence beyond its authorised responsibilities.

The minister also referred to previous findings by the Constitutional Court and the Public Protector in relation to the Nkandla property.

The disagreement centres on the distinction between government-supported security infrastructure and the broader maintenance of a former president’s private home. The foundation wants the government to provide what it considers appropriate support, while the department maintains that its responsibilities are limited by law.

Nkandla and the History of State-Funded Security Upgrades

Nkandla became the centre of a national controversy during Zuma’s presidency after substantial security upgrades were carried out at his private residence using public funds.

In 2016, the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment concerning the Public Protector’s findings on the upgrades. The judgment reinforced the principle that public officials must be held accountable for the use of state resources.

The controversy also led to wider scrutiny of government procurement, the costs of the upgrades and the responsibilities of public officials.

The current dispute concerns the government’s obligations towards Zuma as a former president, particularly the maintenance of security infrastructure at his residence. The historical controversy surrounding the property remains relevant to the debate over the legal limits of state-funded work at private homes.

Foundation Raises Concerns About Zuma’s Official Vehicle Fleet

The foundation’s concerns extend beyond the Nkandla residence.

Manyi has also argued that Zuma’s ageing official vehicle fleet should be replaced, saying that the government’s commitment to respecting former heads of state should be reflected in tangible support.

The foundation maintains that the treatment of former presidents should not be influenced by political disagreements and that their dignity should be respected regardless of their political affiliations.

The question of replacing the vehicle fleet is separate from the dispute over maintenance at Nkandla, and the foundation’s demand does not itself establish that the government has approved a replacement.

Zuma’s Hospitalisation Adds to Calls for Support

The foundation’s demands have emerged amid reports that Zuma was admitted to a hospital in Pietermaritzburg after becoming ill during an electioneering drive in uMsinga.

The uMkhonto weSizwe Party had previously disputed reports about the seriousness of his condition, maintaining that he was well and had visited the hospital for a routine check-up.

Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni subsequently confirmed that President Cyril Ramaphosa had assigned the South African National Defence Force surgeon-general to oversee Zuma’s medical care.

The Presidency also appealed for privacy while the former president focused on his health.

The foundation has argued that concern for Zuma’s well-being should extend to practical matters relating to his residence, security arrangements and official vehicles.

Government Responsibilities Remain at the Centre of the Dispute

The disagreement between the foundation and the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure highlights questions about the scope of government support available to former presidents.

The foundation says existing policies must be implemented fully and consistently. The department, however, maintains that it must operate within the limits of its legal mandate and cannot assume responsibility for maintaining an individual’s private property beyond what the law permits.

The dispute has not been resolved by the competing public statements. The central issue remains the extent of the government’s obligations towards Zuma, particularly regarding security infrastructure and the maintenance of his Nkandla residence.

The Presidency and the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure have been called on by the foundation to ensure that the relevant policies are implemented, while the department has defended its position on the legal limits of its responsibilities.