The Public Protector
Hillcrest Office Park
175 Lunnon Street
Pretoria
0001
Dear Advocate Madonsela
REQUEST FOR A FORENSIC AUDIT ON INKANDLA NON-SECURITY EXPENDITURE
Following the release of your report on the Nkandla Security Upgrades as well as the Report of the President to the National Assembly; the National Assembly appointed an Ad-Hoc Committee which made the following recommendation with respect to non-security upgrades:
“the Committee recommends that the matter of what constitutes security and non-security upgrades at the President’s private residence be referred back to Cabinet for determination by the relevant security experts in line with the Cabinet Memorandum of 2003. Cabinet must report back to Parliament on the steps taken to give effect on this recommendation within three months”.
This recommendation was adopted by the National Assembly through a majority vote.
On the 18th and 19th of March 2015, the Speaker of the National Assembly convened a meeting of the Leaders of the Parties represented in the National Assembly. The purpose of the meeting was to first advise the party leaders that the Minister of Police has indicated his readiness to present the report on the non-security expenditure on Nkandla. Secondly, it was to secure the support of the party leaders that they be briefed by the Minister of Police on the contents of the Nkandla non-security upgrade report, and in turn for them to agree to blackout what she referred to as sensitive areas, all this was to be done before the same report is presented to the National Assembly.
However, during the meeting, I personal asked the Speaker; whether the report is based on the report of the Public Protector or the report of the President and or that of the Ad-Hoc Committee. This question was not answered and it remains not responded to.
The above question is critical and at the centre of what I wish to bring to your attention for a possible action. The report of the Public Protector says with regard to the matter at hand:
“The President is to: take steps, with the assistance of the National Treasury and the SAPS, to determine the reasonable cost of the measures implemented by the DPW at his private residence that do not relate to security, and which include Visitors’ Centre, the amphitheatre, the cattle kraal and chicken run, the swimming pool. Pay a reasonable percentage of the cost of the measures as determined with the assistance of National Treasury, also considering the DPW apportionment document”.
The President in his response to the Speaker said with respect to this matter: “the Minister of Police as the designated Minister under the National Key Points Act, to report to Cabinet on a determination to whether the President is liable for any contribution in respect of the security upgrades having regard to the legislation, past practices, culture and findings contained in the respective reports”.
What is interesting in both the report of the Ad-Hoc Committee and that of the President, is the omission of the critical role of the National Treasury.
In my understanding, amongst other reasons that the report of the Public Protector would have seen a role for the National Treasury, was the internal expertise within that department in handling matters of this nature.
Whilst I have not seen the report, I am unable to see how a determination on this matter could be arrived at, without forensic auditing as I believe that the same methodology could help to verify how much the then architect and contractors at Nkandla could be liable for.
It is my humbly request that your good office cause the National Treasury to conduct a forensic audit in order to determine the actual amounts that constitute what is non-security upgrade in Nkandla. I do not see how best this can be done without such scientific process being followed. The President has, during the last question session in the National Assembly, emphasised the need for quantification of costs to be paid by him, if any. He protested, how can, he be expected to pay monies that are not determined and that he does not know. This clearly calls for this methodology to be considered for the finalisation of the matter.
I look forward to your excellent guidance on this matter.
Kind regards
