Fin24

Zuma has no bond

2012-11-18 10:19

Johannesburg - There is no bond on President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla homestead, as the president claimed in parliament this week.

City Press can reveal that no bond is registered against the Zuma family’s property, titled portion 27 of reserve 19 of farm number 15 839, Nkandla.

This after an emotional Zuma told parliament on Thursday: “I took the decision to expand my home and I built my home with more rondavels, more than once. And I fenced my home. And I engaged the bank and I’m still paying a bond on my first phase of my home.”

And while Zuma’s claims about how his Nkandla home was financed raised more questions than they answered, the police refused an access to information application this week to provide proof that the property had been declared a national key point.

Public works has used the National Key Points Act of 1980 to justify refusing to release information on what exactly it spent R248m on to upgrade Zuma’s compound.

City Press has been unable to locate public records to support the president’s claim that the Nkandla property is bonded.

The land on which Zuma’s home stands is owned by the Ingonyama Trust, headed by King Goodwill Zwelithini, which manages about 32% of all land in KwaZulu-Natal on behalf of the state for the benefit of its occupants.

City Press traced deeds records for Zuma’s property that show there is no bond registered against it.

An “aggrieved” Zuma told parliament he and his family had paid for their own home.

The deed document shows the Ingonyama Trust as the owner of Zuma’s property. 

There is no indication of a bond registered to the property.

Belinda Benson, the Ingonyama Trust’s property manager, confirmed that the deeds office records uncovered by City Press were for the Zuma homestead.

She said as far as she was aware, no bond had been registered against the property.

“Over that particular portion, as it stands right now, there is no bond. Whether it hasn’t been registered yet or if it’s still in the process (of being registered) or whether the president has elected to bond a different property, we don’t know,” she said.

According to her, the Ingonyama Trust had to get involved whenever a bond was registered against a property owned by the trust by providing documentation to conveyancers and banks.

She said it was possible Zuma could have funded the development from a bond on another property. It was also possible for a third party to take out a bond to finance developments on Ingonyama Trust land. 

But if a bond was taken out on trust land property, they would know about it.

Zuma told parliament twice, however, that he was dealing with the “bond”.

The president’s spokesperson, Mac Maharaj, was asked to explain the contradiction.

He was also offered an opportunity to point out any factual errors in our information and to more fully explain the president’s comments, like who the bond might be with.

He acknowledged receipt of our questions but said on Friday that he could not comment “off the cuff”. He was not sure when he could answer.

Searches on a leading online database of official property data reveal no bonds are registered to Zuma as an individual in Nkandla.

There also appear to be no records of bonds in the names of his close family members that relate to a property in Nkandla.

The last time Zuma made a public declaration of property was in his 2004 declaration of interests in parliament, when he registered his use of Nkandla as “permission to occupy”.

The funding of Zuma’s initial construction of rondavels at Nkandla in 2000 occupied a significant part of the fraud and corruption trial against his former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik.

Judge Hilary Squires found that the cost of the development “would plainly be more than Zuma could afford if he still needed Shaik’s help to live on his remuneration as deputy president” and that Zuma had a need for extra money, “not only to meet his current needs but also to pay for this acquisition (of Nkandla)”.

When Shaik found out the builder was charging Zuma R2.4m to construct the rondavels, he (Shaik) asked the builder “if Zuma (thought) money grew on trees”.

Forensic evidence submitted to court showed Zuma couldn’t pay for the construction himself and needed the assistance of friends such as Shaik and businessman Vivian Reddy to pay the builder.

Squires found that at least R250 000 from French arms deal company Thales – which won the R1.3bn tender to provide technology to the navy’s new corvette warships – went towards paying for Zuma’s homestead.

A French fax implicated Zuma in agreeing to receive a R500 000 bribe per year for protecting Thales against an arms deal probe and for promoting their interests in South Africa.

Bruce Myburgh, a property specialist from Myburgh Attorneys in Pretoria, said: “A person cannot take out a bond on land they do not own. Only the person or entity registered at the deed office as the deed owner can take out such a bond on the property.”

He said this applied to property held in trust too. 

– Additional reporting by Adriaan Basson 

- City Press

Comments
  • pieter.kunz - 2012-11-18 10:31

    This is funny as hell. I still want to know, as per stated in this article that he couldnt afford to place in the first place but 5 years later he can afford a 200m rand upgrade ... 1+1=4. Its time to come clean mr president and admit we as tax payers are footing this bill.

      sedick.gydien - 2012-11-18 13:00

      Maybe he meant that he has applied for a copy of the new James BOND movie........this is probably what that snake Mac the BS will say.....

      colin.louw.77 - 2012-11-19 12:13

      Maybe it is time to coin a new phrase? "Lies, damned lies and Zuma-speak?"

      konstabel.koekemoer - 2012-11-19 13:06

      Zuma is just a common liar and thief. If everything is above board why does he not release all the information? I guess a leopard never changes his spots, once a crook always a crook.

  • robin.stobbs.9 - 2012-11-18 11:07

    What beats me is that there are sheep who still want him as President for a second term! Wasn't the first time around enough to show them that he's a liar, cheat and thief?

      arno.pfohl - 2012-11-19 09:58

      The funny thing is allot of those supporters apply to the characteristics that you have just mentioned.

  • SarelJBotha - 2012-11-18 11:15

    Thus he lied to parliament and there is more reason to actually lay charges against this bafoon.

      craig.bennetts.9 - 2012-11-18 12:32

      As in a real democracy,he should be called on to resign as with Pres Nixon in USA

  • craig.bennetts.9 - 2012-11-18 12:31

    Liar liar your voters are on fire!

  • douglas.reid.921 - 2012-11-18 13:24

    The office of the president is the highest in the county. When Nixon lied about Watergate he was impeached. If this turns out to be a lie then the government has no option but to impeach him. We wait and see.......

  • madiba.lesiba - 2012-11-18 13:53

    Zuma has lied under oath to da voters.he must step down as da country president n go straight to prison where he belong.the man doesn't think straight.he has no shame

  • john.wiggin.3 - 2012-11-18 20:55

    "No Bond......and no balls"

  • arthur.salvado - 2012-11-19 07:41

    This is going to be fun. Let's watch and listen to the excuses."I was no aware" is probably right. Zuma is not aware of anything. It's going to be a laugh. Can't wait taxpayers must demand their money back. Fat chance !

  • toni.falletisch - 2012-11-19 07:59

    ... and he wants us to respect him ... lies and all?

  • quarty.vanzyl - 2012-11-19 08:18

    The head man is not even a good liar!!

  • richard.laros.77 - 2012-11-19 09:11

    Well there's a suprise!! :-0

  • ian.huntly - 2012-11-19 09:14

    This joker is better at making money suddenly appear than that other known magician, Julius. It think it is an absolute miracle that JZ who was close to bankrupt and had to loan money left right and centre only 5 years ago, and that his family couldn't help out, now states that he is financing this R200 Mil plus development. Perhaps SARS need to look closely at what is happening here. Maybe there is a mint in the basement? Just as R30,000 per money can not even cover a small portion of a R12 mil bond, so too this financial miracle is deeply suspect. Maybe both jokers need to get out the game, and let the really conscientious ANC leaders take the helm and stop making SA an absolute laughing stock. Even Zim is seen as more stable than SA at the moment.

  • thabo.dijoe - 2012-11-19 09:24

    Just how did this man become president of this country??? Somebody please please tell me...

  • danny.holando - 2012-11-19 09:24

    If it is true that there is no bond - this suggests that President Zuma may have lied- is it possible that he may have lied about other things that are of national importance?

  • george.day.7330 - 2012-11-19 13:58

    Come on now folks! We are all sport fanatics and rugby fans especially. Although we still have a few small glitches, why not use the techs we have available, and simply, like the ref, ask the question properly, like,,''Mr. TMO, can you please give me a reason why I cannot have Zumy arrested, tried and send to jail?'' Nothing could be easier or more fair!

  • renier.coetzee.5 - 2012-11-19 18:11

    And so the lies and corruption continues...what an example for the rest of SA...oh dear, this country is headed for BIG trouble...

  • pages:
  • 1