The truth about Nkandla

Public Protector Thuli Madonsela said publishing her provisional report was both unlawful in terms section 7(2) of the Public Protector Act 23 of 1994 and also unethical. Technically she is right, but how can this be unethical. Now we know that upgrades to the property which was described by the government as “essential for Zuma’s security” included the building of a swimming pool, a visitors’ centre, amphitheatre, cattle kraal, marquee area, extensive paving and new houses for relatives.
She said these upgrades came at an “enormous cost” to the taxpayer.
Madonsela then recommends that the Zumster himself be called to account by Parliament for violating the executive ethics code on two counts. These were for failing to protect state resources, and misleading Parliament for suggesting he and his family had paid for all non-security-related features. According to the report published by die M&G the costs escalated from an initial R27m to R215m, with a further R31m in outstanding works.
Whether she likes it or not, the fact remains that her report, which could easily have been kept secret by the Zuma regime, is now in the public domain. It proves that our president received substantial personal benefits from the building project.