Zuma Doesn’t Need Your Money For Nkandla Bill, Beware Of Online Scams – Presidency Warns


The presidency has warned South Africans to be on the lookout for social media scam where people are asked to deposit money into designated bank accounts in support of President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla bill.

Presidency spokesman, Bongani Ngqulunga emphasized in a statement that members of the public have not been asked to contribute towards helping President Jacob Zuma pay back the R7.8 million for non-security upgrades to Nkandla as determined by National Treasury.

See Also: ANC: We Are Ready To Pay For Zuma’s Nkandla Upgrades

“Such requests have fraudulently been made in light of the submission of the Nkandla homestead non-security upgrades report to the Constitutional Court by the National Treasury,” the statement added.

Ngqulunga also stated that no bank account has been opened for this purpose.

On Tuesday, the Treasury informed the Constitutional Court on Monday that it has fixed Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla bill at just over R7.8 million. This follows Constitutional Court Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng ruling in March that the National Treasury must determine a “reasonable percentage” of the costs which should be paid personally by the president.

The ConCourt also ruled that the National Treasury was to determine the amount within 60 days, in addition, the “president must personally pay the amount … within 45 days.

The upgrades identified from the R246 million upgrades include Zuma’s visitors’ centre, amphitheater, cattle kraal, chicken run and a swimming pool.

See Also: Treasury Reveals Zuma’s Nkandla Bill, Do You Think The Figures Are Justified?

A breakdown of the total cost indicate that R3.96 million was spent on the swimming pool; R3.92 million was spent on the visitors centre, R1.2- million was spent on the cattle kraal and chicken run while the cost of Zuma’s amphitheater is still unclear, according to an earlier report obtained.

The court’s ruling also confirmed that the Public Protector’s findings were binding and could not be second-guessed and could only be challenged on legal review.

Topics: >