Yet another attempt to assassinate the Minister’s character
The Minister read with shock the report on News24 wherein the Democratic Alliance is accusing the Minister of Public Works of misleading parliament on the Nkandla costs calculations. The same accusations were made by the sowetan where it was insinuated that the Minister failed to cooperate with treasury investigation into the Nkandla matter.
The sowetan article like the DA gives an impression that the Minister or the department was attempting to stifle the investigation by National Treasury.
It should be recalled that Minister Nxesi took over as the Minister of Public Works when the Nkandla project was implemented and completed. He instituted an investigation that made several recommendations including that the matter be referred to the SIU for further investigation.
The department has co-operated with all investigation teams, including the Public Protector, SIU and National Treasury. It is for this reason that the Minister of Public Works was not even cited as a respondent in the Constitutional Court matter as one of the parties who failed or refused to comply with the Public Protector’s report.
The public protector’s report confirms that her office received “voluminous documents received from the department including amongst others, cost estimates, bill of quantities prepared by R&G Consultant, designs and site plans of the project etc. This is what is in possession of the department which was made available. If the documents are not at the state they should be, as the Minister I cannot manufacture them.
The maladministration and poor planning of the Nkandla project was highlighted by the Ministerial task team long before SIU and Public Protector raised the point. Failure to record minutes, file important documents, update drawings and sketches etc was the frustration of all involved. As correctly pointed out by the Public Protector, as the demands from officials and other stakeholders were received, designs were changed which resulted in more expenditure.
Department of Public Works had appointed service providers or consultants to prepare drawings. For example the Architect was appointed and paid to prepare designs, R&G Consultants were appointed and paid to prepare bill of quantities.
Clearly if such drawings and bill of quantities are not updated to include the final built drawings, demonstrate the Minister’s long held view which is supported by SIU and Public Protector that the project was badly handled from beginning to the end.
Now how does one impute blame on the Minister of a department when consultants appointed by officials without following proper Supply Chain prescripts, paid exorbitant amount of monies failed to produce updated drawings and bill of quantities?
It is a fact that the Minister cooperated with the National Treasury and provided them with all the documents in the department’s possession. Therefore it is mind boggling how one can conclude that the Minister deliberately tried to mislead parliament. If plans and drawings provided were not at the state they should be, how can that omission be imputed on the Minister?
Enquiries:
Phillip Masilo (Minister’s Legal Adviser)
Cell: 084 580 1430
