Public Works and Infrastructure Minister Dean Macpherson stated that taxpayers will not fund the general maintenance of former president Jacob Zuma’s private Nkandla residence, emphasizing that state obligations are strictly limited to security-related infrastructure. Macpherson issued the response following a parliamentary inquiry from former MK Party MP Pumlani Kubukeli regarding the KwaZulu-Natal property.
Parliamentary Inquiry Into Nkandla Maintenance
Kubukeli asked whether the minister knew that the private residence had allegedly deteriorated significantly due to a failure by the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure to conduct regular maintenance. The MP also questioned why the property had not received upkeep despite holding National Key Point status, and whether the alleged failure warranted intervention from President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Macpherson rejected the premise that maintaining the private property falls under the department’s purview. According to the minister, state resources cannot be used for non-security features located on the homestead.
Did You Know? Following an assessment by the National Treasury, former president Jacob Zuma repaid about R7.8m towards the cost of non-security upgrades in 2016.
Scope of State Responsibility and Constitutional Court Precedent
Macpherson clarified that state-funded maintenance at the private residences of all former presidents is restricted to security installations requested by the South African Police Service. These permitted state resources are dedicated entirely to physical security, access control, and operational support such as housing for protection personnel.
Recalling past controversies, Macpherson referenced former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s 2014 “Secure in Comfort” report, which found that R246m of public funds had been improperly spent on upgrades. The report detailed how spending on several measures installed by the Department of Public Works went beyond what was reasonably required for Zuma’s security.
The Constitutional Court subsequently held in 2016 that improvements like a swimming pool—described by officials as a fire pool—along with a cattle kraal, chicken run, amphitheatre, and visitors’ centre were non-security features. The court ruled that Zuma had to contribute toward their costs and that his failure to comply with the public protector’s remedial action was inconsistent with the constitution.
Department Rejects Claims of Presidential Intervention Need
Macpherson maintained that there was no departmental failure that would require intervention from President Cyril Ramaphosa. He noted that if any confusion remains, the former president is welcome to contact the Presidency or the minister’s office for further clarity.
“How the former president wishes to maintain his property is entirely within his discretion and not the responsibility of the state,” Macpherson said.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who asked the parliamentary question regarding Nkandla’s maintenance?
Former MK Party MP Pumlani Kubukeli submitted the parliamentary question to Minister Dean Macpherson.
What specific non-security features are excluded from state maintenance?
According to the minister, state responsibilities exclude chicken coops, cattle kraals, amphitheatres, swimming pools, and visitor centres.
How much did former president Jacob Zuma repay in 2016?
Zuma repaid about R7.8m toward the cost of non-security upgrades following an assessment by the National Treasury.
Worth a look