Architect ordered to repay R147 million over Jacob Zuma's Nkandla upgrades

The Special Tribunal has ordered Minenhle Makhanya, the architect and principal agent for the security upgrades at former president Jacob Zuma's Nkandla residence, to repay the state approximately R147.3 million. The ruling follows civil action brought by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) after the tribunal found that Makhanya's appointment and conduct during the project were unlawful. The tribunal determined that Makhanya contributed to significant financial losses for the Department of Public Works through the certification of payments for over-designed buildings, above-market construction costs, and work that was either not performed or not properly accounted for.

The project was initially estimated to cost R27.9 million in 2009 following security assessments by the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the South African National Defence Force (SANDF). However, the overall cost eventually rose to over R216 million. The SIU investigation found that the project expanded to include items not required by security assessments, such as a pool, a laundry facility, a visitors' lounge, and basement parking for a clinic. The tribunal specifically found that Makhanya's appointment lacked a competitive bidding process and that he breached professional and statutory obligations.

Judge Karin Pillay noted in the judgment that it was regrettable that Makhanya was the only person against whom the SIU launched action, stating that he clearly did not act alone in allowing the costs to balloon. Makhanya argued that he was implementing instructions from the SAPS and SANDF and raised defenses regarding the time elapsed since the project, but the tribunal rejected these arguments.

Reporting on the event differed slightly in focus based on political lean. The center-left coverage emphasized the judge's observation that Makhanya did not act alone, framing the ruling within a broader context of shared responsibility. The center-right coverage focused more heavily on the specific legal breaches, the lack of a competitive tender process, and the detailed list of unauthorized luxury additions to the property.