Crime is Crime Corruption is Corruption Murder is Murder Rape is Rape Facts are Facts
Friday, November 29, 2013
Tales of Horror
South Africa is reeling in shock yet again following the rape of a six-week-old baby in Northern Cape. Other horrendous incidents reported recently include:
- The rape and murder of two cousins - Yonelisa and Zandile Mali - aged two and three, in Diepsloot, north of Johannesburg, last month;
- A nine-month-old baby was raped in Franschhoek, Western Cape, this month. Two men, aged 24 and 45, were arrested;
- A two-year-old girl was raped in Knysna, Western Cape, this month. She also had burn wounds on her genitals;
- A two-year-old child was raped in Kuruman, Northern Cape. A 40-year-old man was arrested;
- On Monday last week, a 23-month-old toddler was raped in Sterkstroom in Eastern Cape. Yesterday, a 33-year-old neighbour was taken in for questioning by police; and
- In May, a priest was convicted of raping a five-year-old girl in East London,Eastern Cape.
Nkandla Timeline
May 1, 2009
Security assessment
A security assessment of Zuma’s Nkandla residence is done by state security. State security personnel recommend improvements of around R27.9m
June 1, 2010
Funds redirected
R77m from other programmes is directed to Nkandla security upgrades. These programmes include city regeneration. Approval was for R38.9m in 2010/11 and R38.1m in 2011/12, the M&G reports.
September 1, 2010
Nkandla deadline
Geoff Doidge is still Public Works minister at this stage. He visits a project “on a deadline by the principal [Zuma] to have the site operational by December”.
November 1, 2010
Project on track
Geoff Doidge is fired in a cabinet reshuffle and is replaced by Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde. She writes to Zuma and says the project is still on track
December 1, 2010
Phase 1
99% of Phase 1 is complete and the department starts planning Phase II
October 1, 2011
Completion date missed
Phase II’s completion date is missed. A major contractor Bonelena misses deadlines.
April 1, 2012
Contract cancelled
The department cancels its contract with Bonelena. Phase II is 95% complete.
August 1, 2012
Liquidation
Bonelena goes into liquidation after a settlement is reached out of court.
October 7, 2012
Public Protector
Public Protector Thuli Madonsela opens an investigation into publicly funded construction at Nkandla.
November 1, 2012
National Key Point
Jacob Zuma addresses Parliament and says costs of Nkandla upgrades are due to the National Key Points act.
November 1, 2012
Investigation promised
Thulas Nxesi, Public Works minister, promises an investigation.
November 15, 2012
'Family paid'
Jacob Zuma says he feels aggrieved by reports around his house in Nkandla and tells MPs: "It has not been built by government."
"All the buildings and every room we use in that residence was built by ourselves as family, and not by government," he said, responding to a question in the National Assembly.
June 1, 2013
'Top Secret'
The department’s investigation is classified as ‘Top Secret’.
November 8, 2013
Protector costs paid
The state agrees to pay Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's costs following its bid to prevent her from releasing a draft report into Nkandla.
November 14, 2013
Bid abandoned
Security ministers abandon a bid to stop Public Protector Thuli Madonsela from releasing her draft report on Nkandla upgrade.
November 15, 2013
Pay costs
The state has agrees to pay Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's costs following its bid to prevent her from releasing a draft report into the upgrade at President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla homestead, reports say.
November 20, 2013
Images prohibited
Ministers in the security cluster say South Africans should desist from publishing and distributing images of Nkandla
November 20, 2013
Update
Public Protector Thuli Madonsela gives an update on her investigation into the upgrades at Nkandla
November 22, 2013
Viral
National newspapers publish photographs of Nkandla homestead , despite a warning that it is illegal to do so.
November 29, 2013
Provisional report
The M&G publishes details from Thuli Madonsela’s provisional report into Nkandla. The reports states President Jacob Zuma received substantial personal benefits from the multi-million rand upgrade to Nkandla.
Nkandla report: Payback time, Zuma
Public protector directs Zuma to repay the state and explain himself to Parliament
President Jacob Zuma has derived “substantial” personal benefit from works that exceeded security needs at his Nkandla homestead and must repay the state, public protector Thuli Madonsela has provisionally found.
Cabinet members have justified the tax millions splurged on Nkandla, saying it was essential in providing Zuma with appropriate security.
But a swimming pool, visitors’ centre, amphitheatre, cattle kraal, marquee area, extensive paving and new houses for relocated relatives were all improperly included in the security upgrade at “enormous cost” to the taxpayer, Madonsela found.
AmaBhungane calculates that cost at nearly R20-million.
And, what may be Zuma’s greatest embarrassment since taking office, Madonsela’s provisional report recommends that Parliament must call him to account for violating the executive ethics code on two counts: failing to protect state resources, and misleading Parliament for suggesting he and his family had paid for all structures unrelated to security.
Zuma told Parliament last November: “All the buildings and every room we use in that residence was built by ourselves as family and not by government.”
Madonsela’s report is provisional as she has yet to give the interested and affected parties, including Zuma, a chance to comment, which may affect her findings. Its working title is Opulence on a Grand Scale – apparently from a complaint made by a member of the public. Her findings include that the upgrade constitutes exactly that.
The release of the report has been delayed by the security cluster and public works ministers’ attempt earlier this month to interdict her from releasing it pending the resolution of their “security” concerns. This has raised fears that Madonsela may be prevented from reporting her full findings.
AmaBhungane has learnt key features of the report from sources with direct access to it but who cannot be named due to sensitivity over leaks. Her findings are corroborated by over 12 000 pages of evidence amaBhungane obtained through access-to-information litigation from the department of public works, which implemented the upgrade.
Key allegations in the report include:
- Costs escalated from an initial R27-million to R215-million, with a further R31-million in works outstanding;
- There was “uncontrolled creep” of the project’s scope after Zuma’s private architect, at Zuma’s behest, assumed a second hat as the public works department’s “principal agent”. This meant he was conflicted, serving two masters with divergent needs;
- Another four firms that Zuma had privately engaged for his own work were taken on by the department without following tender procedures.
AmaBhungane estimates that the Zuma appointees were paid more than R90-million by the state;
- There were unsuccessful attempts by the department to apportion non-security costs to Zuma. Madonsela could not determine whether a document apportioning the costs reached Zuma;
- The Nkandla upgrade was “acutely” more expensive than public works expenditure at previous presidents’ private homes, by far the most expensive of which was Nelson Mandela’s at R32-million (see graphic); and
- Even genuine security measures, such as 20 houses for police protectors, a clinic and two helipads were excessive and could have been placed at the nearby town to benefit the broader community.
Security assessment
Madonsela does not share concerns about the R100 000 cap the Ministerial Handbook places on security upgrades at the private residences of members of the executive. She finds that its prescripts do not apply to the president and his deputy, whose needs are regulated by a 2003 Cabinet policy, among other measures.
A police security assessment in May 2009, after Zuma’s swearing in, and her own inspection in August this year confirmed a genuine need for a security upgrade.
Following the initial police assessment, the public works department estimated the upgrade at about R27-million.
But two factors intervened, both in August 2009: Zuma started building three new houses, necessitating further security, and his private architect was introduced to the department to become its principal agent for the entire upgrade.
Madonsela finds the latter resulted from Zuma’s “political interference”.
Zuma’s team
Her report quotes public works officials as saying they were told Zuma wanted the architect, quantity surveyor, engineers and building contractor he had engaged for his private work appointed by the department for the security upgrade.
Zuma, according to a statement from the architect, attended when his service providers were introduced to the department. Like all other contractors and consultants on the upgrade, the department engaged them without tender.
AmaBhungane calculates, based in part on the documentation it obtained, that the state paid Zuma’s team more than R90-million, including R16.6-million for the architect, R13.8-million for the quantity surveyor and R56.3-million for the builder. This is more than 40% of the total cost.
Madonsela places much blame for the eightfold cost escalation to R215-million on the architect, Minenhle Makhanya, who precipitated “uncontrolled creep” of the scope of the upgrade. He declined to comment for this article.
Makhanya was conflicted, Madonsela finds. As the department’s principal agent, he was supposed to ensure legitimate security works were implemented cost-effectively but, as Zuma’s private architect, he was supposed to satisfy the latter’s needs.
He allegedly remained directly in contact with the president, discussing designs with him.
Aggravating the conflict, Madonsela says, is that Makhanya’s fees were calculated as a percentage of project spend – an incentive to expand the scope of the works.
Wagging the dog
In the end, Makhanya became the tail that wagged the state dog. The police security experts made some proposals but the design was largely left to Makhanya, who was no security expert.
Madonsela cites the underground security bunkering and sheltered walkways as an example. The original cost estimate – admittedly before there were three more houses – was R500 000. After Makhanya’s introduction, this increased to about R8-million. Eventually R19.6-million was spent.
Madonsela says that Makhanya struggled to explain to her why the security upgrade needed to include elements she ultimately found improperly benefited Zuma – the swimming pool, visitors’ lounge, amphitheatre, kraal, paving and the relocation of some of the presidents’ relatives.
The relatives who had humble rondavels near Zuma’s homes, were apparently because Makhanya felt the security fence should not meander around them. R7.9-million was spent building the two affected families a collection of new rondavels beyond the perimeter fence.
A public works progress report from June 2010, among the documents amaBhungane obtained, places responsibility at Zuma’s door, saying that “it is understood that the owner/owner’s representative negotiated with the families” and agreed to provide each with four rondavels, palisade fencing, an access road, paving, water and electricity connections and a cattle kraal.
The report’s author expressed uncertainty whether this should accrue to the state or Zuma, and sought guidance.
Madonsela finds that the relocations did not fulfil a true security need, was “unlawful” and improperly benefited the presidential family.
Excessive
Other items she found exceeded security needs and unduly added value to the president’s private property are, as costed by amaBhungane:
l The swimming pool, which aerial photographs show as a large, oblong-shaped feature at the centre of an extensive paved area covering basement garages.
The public works documentation amaBhungane obtained refers to it as a “fire pool” on the pretext that it doubles up as a water reservoir for fire-fighting purposes, although photographs show a large water reservoir higher up the hill.
The minutes of a progress meeting in June 2011 show that Makhanya was to “meet with the principal [Zuma] and present the fire pool”.
An early estimate costed the pool at about R550 000 but it and the basement parking ultimately came to R2.8-million;
- The visitors’ centre, which shares a building with a control room. An earlier estimate for the “visitors’ centre and lounge” came in at about R5.4-million but the “visitors’ centre and control room” ultimately came in at R6.7-million;
- The amphitheatre – a large stepped area overlooking an open space for performances. It appears not to have been costed separately and forms part of R68-million in “general site works”;
- The cattle kraal, including a chicken coop. The department’s original cost estimate provided for an existing kraal in the residential complex to be “revamped”.
But later pictures show an entirely new, much larger kraal, complete with a reinforced culvert going under the perimeter fence. AmaBhungane could find no separate costing for the kraal, but a March 2011 estimate put the culvert at R1.2-million; and
- Extensive paving and a marquee area, which appear not to have been costed separately.
Repayment
The figures above, starting with the R7.9-million for relocations, approach R20-million.
Madonsela does not attempt a similar costing exercise but finds that the value of Zuma’s private property was unduly increased and that he must repay a “reasonable” amount to the state, based on the cost of non-security items.
She does not resolve why attempts by officials to allocate some of the costs to Zuma came to naught.
The documents obtained by amaBhungane show that the department’s own professional team complained in December 2010 about the runaway costs, with one official writing about estimates having “almost doubled” and the need for a budget to be “established and confirmed”.
The same official also writes: “Any grey areas in terms of apportionment of costs must be identified, discussed and resolved. Items which are essential and items which are ‘nice to haves’ and therefore not necessarily required for this project, must be discussed.”
Allocations
As of January 2011, there were several iterations of cost allocations, initially apportioning R7.9-million to Zuma. Two months later, in March, the department’s Durban regional manager brought the results of a third allocation exercise to the attention of his minister and her deputy: R10.7-million to Zuma.
The manager sought authority from them to proceed with these works, “as it falls outside the scope of security measures”, and suggested discussing it with Zuma.
Incidentally, Madonsela finds that the professional team was sidelined that same month, supposedly on head office instructions.
The next month, June, a fourth cost allocation exercise reduced Zuma’s portion to R3-million, amaBhungane’s documents show.
Madonsela says that the then deputy minister, Hendrietta Bogopane-Zulu, was also sidelined after asking questions about costs and apportionment. Zuma shifted her to become deputy minister of women, children and persons with disabilities in October that year.
Madonsela finds there is inconclusive evidence for whether the apportionment calculations reached Zuma. However, implicit in her conclusions is that, by the time she completed her provisional report, Zuma had not repaid a cent.
His office has never responded to detailed questions about the upgrade, including apportionment, and had again not done so at the time of going to press. – Reporting by Stefaans Brümmer and Lionel Faull
Zuma's say-so sent millions to his annointed Nkandla contractor
President Jacob Zuma's intervention halfway through the security upgrade at Nkandla channelled an extra R20-million to two contractors, one of whom had been his own private builder before government work began.
Although Zuma allegedly justified himself on the basis that he did not want different contractors on his premises for a new phase of construction, the bulk of this work was to accommodate a sizeable police VIP protection contingent on government property removed from his homestead.
This flies in the face of the distinction that the parliamentary joint standing committee on intelligence tried to make this month between the upgrade on Zuma's private land and construction on adjacent land belonging to the public works department, and where the additional R20-million was spent.
"Neither these buildings nor any of the security features to be found on the state-owned property belong to the president," said the committee's report to Parliament earlier this month. "It should therefore be noted that over 52% of the costs of the security upgrades went to the state-owned property."
On the contrary, Zuma's documented request to retain the previous contractors led to their appointment by the state to take on the additional work – to build 20 new police houses at a staggering R1-million per house.
Building contractor Moneymine, which Zuma had previously commissioned as his private builder, got the lion's portion of this work.
Zuma made his demand through then-deputy public works minister Hendrietta Bogopane-Zulu in December 2010, when the department was considering how to undertake phase two of the upgrade.
On December 16, the project's quantity surveyor advised the department of two possible ways of dividing up the work for phase two. The surveyor suggested that Moneymine and co-contractor Bonelena could continue doing security work within the homestead while a new contractor built the police accommodation elsewhere.
The other option, the surveyor proposed, was for Moneymine and Bonelena to share the police accommodation contract between them, in addition to the work assigned to them on Zuma's property.
The surveyor recommended the latter option, although they also raised a concern that Bonelena had struggled to deliver during phase one.
The clincher, however, appears to have been Zuma's demand to keep new contractors out.
According to the project manager's procurement report that later justified the decisions made by the department: "A meeting was held with Deputy Minister Bogopane-Zulu … on December 21 in which she confirmed that the Principal [Zuma] indicated that he does not want other contractors on site in Phase II opposed to Phase I."
In January 2011, the department appointed Moneymine and Bonelena to do all the work on both the properties.
Six-Week-Old Baby Raped
Seen here the rape suspect during his arrest.
A six-week-old baby is fighting for her life after being raped – allegedly by her mother’s brother.“She was examined and taken to theatre. She is currently in the ICU in a critical but stable condition,” She underwent extensive emergency surgery to repair the injuries sustained in the ordeal.
In one of the most horrifying instances of child rape ever reported, the infant, born on October 17, is in intensive care after being brought to Kimberley Hospital around 2am on Wednesday.
According to a relative, who cannot be identified as it would identify the baby, the child’s 22-year-old unmarried mother had put the infant down to sleep in the bedroom of their Galeshewe home and was sitting in the lounge with the child’s grandmother watching television.
The relative said that after a short while, the mother heard the baby cry and went to check on her. When she entered the bedroom, she saw that the child was missing and that the bedroom curtain had been removed.
Screaming that her child had been abducted, she ran to the relative’s house.
The frantic grandmother, meanwhile, heard the infant’s cries coming from a shack in the family’s backyard. When she forced open the door, her 24-year-old son pushed her out of the way and ran out – zipping up his pants.
![Copy of Copy of DF rape 2711 d [1]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uT5sG5k1SOYfSmVHRyqnKySOAMowDEh-sV9Yq22QleMRcrhPJf3XNid2OYsBcBUs6E3XBlhQfPEDQtEOdNR1pR5eX3P9Jg3xQPfl_A78WPA10YYVH3tOEkDI0p9wfivHVzaQM3Q5METBbBGB-i5DtXsMpFuirxE1jDFHKeTIYe2ULBpUQlCUrt_KrrrAztczUB6D9oF-FTUHonR6vm_LxhU4zCNqL3zYj9XCbw=s0-d)
According to the relative, she and several other neighbours heard the screams of the grandmother and rushed to the shack.
“When I got there, the baby was lying naked on the bed and there was a lot of blood. She was crying,” said the relative.
She wrapped the naked infant in a blanket and the child was taken to hospital.
Local residents apparently hunted down the man and caught him a few blocks from the house.
It is alleged that he had lifted the baby out of the bedroom through the window.
On Wednesday, the bedroom, which had been turned upside down, presumably by the police’s forensic experts, showed signs of the life shared by the mother and her infant child – a baby’s bottle and a small toy dog.
A glass pane in the window of the bedroom was broken and the window was open.
After apprehending the suspect, angry residents threatened to kill the man, but they were stopped by the grandmother, who pleaded for his life.
According to her, he was mentally unstable. The suspect was apparently involved in an altercation with the police a week ago and was shot twice during the incident.
He allegedly tried to stab a police officer while resisting arrest.
He was admitted to hospital after the incident, but then ran away.
After the rape, the suspect claimed that the blood on his T-shirt was as a result of the altercation with the police.
The mother of the baby, who was keeping vigil at the child’s hospital bed on Wednesday, was too traumatised to speak.
"Another body: But who cares?
Cop looks on as mob kills alleged thief"
The victim, whose name is not yet known, died in hospital.
Another body . . . but who cares? He becomes the latest statistic in the horrifying list of victims of "people's justice".
As in almost every other instance, the rage of residents was triggered by what they saw as the lack of response by cops to criminal acts.
....the battering, beating and kicking did not stop even when a uniformed cop arrived in a police van.
An ambulance eventually took the injured man to hospital.
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71627?oid=467100&sn=Detail&pid=71616
Project Hoefyster: R 10 Billion - R 42.5 million per "Badger"
The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, must not be allowed to cover up the cost of the 238 "Badger" infantry combat vehicles, being acquired for the South African National Defence Force (SANDF), under "Project Hoefyster".
The Defence Review, which is supposed to determine the long-term acquisition priorities of the Defence Force, has not been completed and has not been tabled in Parliament.
Yet, earlier this year the Minster approved the production phase of "Project Hoefyster" for 238 "Badger" infantry combat vehicles, over a period of ten years, for the Defence Force.
The production phase of the project was approved following the development phase of the "Badger" infantry combat vehicle, which was completed in 2010 and cost R1.3 billion.
The "Badger" infantry combat vehicles will be produced by Denel, working in conjunction with a Finnish company, Patria, and will replace the 30-year old Ratel infantry combat vehicles, currently used by the Defence Force.
Ratel infantry combat vehicle.
More than 2 000 jobs are expected to be created as a result of "Project Hoefyster".
Riaz Saloojee, Denel's group chief executive officer, described the project as "the most significant defence contract signed with a South African company in the last 10 years".
It is, therefore, a huge concern that:
- A major defence acquisition project was approved before the completion of the Defence Review; and
- That the total cost of the defence acquisition project has never been disclosed to Parliament.
In fact, at a Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans meeting, on 06 November 2013, the Defence Department refused point-blank to reply to any questions about the cost of "Project Hoefyster".
We do not know the total cost of the 238 "Badger" infantry combat vehicles being acquired under "Project Hoefyster".
However, the estimated cost of the development and production of the 238 "Badger" infantry combat vehicles could be more than R10 billion.*
This means that each "Badger" infantry combat vehicle could cost approximately R42.5 million.
In the end, the R10 billion estimated cost of the 238 "Badger" infantry combat vehicles is probably a conservative estimate.
Whatever the case, we have to ask how it is that a major defence acquisition contract, such as "Project Hoefyster", was approved without the knowledge of Parliament.
I have already submitted parliamentary questions probing the cost of "Project Hoefyster". However, I will submit further parliamentary questions probing:
Why the production phase of "Project Hoefyster" was approved before the Defence Review was completed;
Why the acquisition of "Badger" infantry combat vehicles was prioritized when there are other competing requirements, which would appear to be more urgent, such as the acquisition of transport aircraft;
How the figure of 2 000 jobs, which are expected to be generated as a result of "Project Hoefyster", was derived; and
Most importantly the total life cycle cost, and a breakdown of the life cycle cost, of "Project Hoefyster".
* The figures used above were derived as follows:
Assuming the production cost of 264 "Badger" infantry combat vehicles was R8 400 000 000 in 2011 as set out in Denel's 2012 annual report;
Adjusting the production cost of the 264 "Badger" infantry combat vehicles for inflation, using official inflation rates, to R9 767 197 440;
Calculating the unit cost of a "Badger" infantry fighting vehicle, by dividing R 9 767 197 440 by 264, to arrive at a unit cost of R 36 996 960;
Calculating the cost of 238 "Badger" infantry combat vehicles, by multiplying the unit cost of R36 996 960 by 238, to arrive at total estimated production cost of R 8 805 276 480;
Adding the development cost of R1 300 000 000 to the estimated production cost of R 8 805 276 480 to arrive at a total estimated contract cost of R10 105 276 480;
and finally
Calculating the unit cost of a "Badger" infantry combat vehicle by dividing R10 105 276 480 by 238, to arrive at an estimated unit cost of R 42 459 144.
Statement issued by David Maynier MP, DA Shadow Minister of Defence & Military Veterans, November 28 2013
Citrus Ban on SA Products
ANC govt's failure to prioritise animal health and pest control measures will cost country billions
It has been confirmed that the European Union (EU) has enforced the ban on South African citrus products.
This comes after the EU warned South Africa about the continuing disease in our products, specifically black spot. Last week the EU cautioned South Africa about its intent to ban citrus products for the coming year. This has now been imposed and poses a risk to our economy (see below).
Currently, the citrus industry employs 40 000 permanent workers and an additional 40 000 seasonal workers. If this ban is not lifted urgently, 80 000 jobs could be affected and the prohibition on SA products to the EU could cost the country over R13 billion per annum.
Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Tina Joemat-Pettersson, in conjunction with her colleague and Minister of Trade and Industry Rob Davies must act urgently and reassure the European community that everything will be done to prevent black spot from spreading. It is essential to reassure investors that South Africa priotises pest control.
Minister of Trade and Industry Rob Davies
Earlier this year, the DA urged Minster Joemat-Petersson to priotise animal disease and pest control measures. This was in light of a EU delegation visit to the country to assess whether sufficient disease control measures had been put in place after the 2011 outbreak of foot and mouth disease which led to another ban on some SA meat exports.
This meant that South Africa was losing an additional R4 billion per annum. In its report after the oversight visit to South Africa, the EU highlighted that there was clearly still a lack of sufficient control measures in South Africa as the enforcing authorities were not sufficiently empowered to do so by the legislation.
The DA urged the Minster to enact the Animal Health Act of 2002, which would do so, but this is yet to be done.
Clearly the Minster has failed to prioritise animal health and pest control measures and this will cost South Africa R15 billion - as a result of both meat and citrus export bans.
The DA urges government to do everything possible to reassure investors that pest control measures will be implemented without delay. Jobs, families and ultimately breadwinners are depending on this sector for their livelihoods.
The time for ignoring our calls for greater pest control measures is over. Government must now act without delay.
Statement issued by Annette Steyn MP, DA Shadow Minister of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries, November 28 2013
Press statement from the European Commission, November 28 2013:
Plant Health: Experts endorse emergency measures to restrict the import of citrus fruit from South Africa
Emergency measures proposed by the Commission to tackle citrus fruit from South Africa contaminated with citrus black spot, a harmful fungus not native to Europe, were today endorsed by Member State experts meeting at the Standing Committee on Plant Health (SCPH). Citrus black spot, caused by the fungusGuignardia citricarpa, is a plant disease which attacks citrus plants causing high losses to citrus fruit production.
The EU is free from citrus black spot. During 2013, citrus black spot has been intercepted at the arrival into the EU in 36 consignments of citrus fruit from South Africa, although this is explicitly against EU´s import requirements. In 2013 around 600 000 tons of citrus fruit has been imported from South Africa representing approximately a third of the total import of citrus fruit in the EU territory.
The introduction of citrus black spot into the EU territory would pose a serious threat to the EU's citrus producing areas. For that reason, it is necessary to further restrict the import of citrus fruit from South Africa. The new EU measures apply for citrus fruit produced during the 2012-2013 growing season, allowing only the entrance into the EU of citrus fruit originating in South African pest free areas for citrus black spot.
Source: http://europa.eu/
Nkandla report damns Zuma
President Jacob Zuma received substantial personal benefits from the multi-million rand upgrade to his Nkandla homestead in KwaZulu-Natal, the Mail & Guardian reported on Friday.
This emerged in Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's provisional report into the upgrades, according to the newspaper.
Government has stated the upgrades were essential for Zuma's security, but Madonsela found a swimming pool, visitors' centre, amphitheatre, cattle kraal, marquee area, extensive paving, and new houses for relatives included in the upgrade at "enormous cost" to the taxpayer.
Madonsela's report recommended the president be called to account by Parliament for violating the executive ethics code on two counts.
These were for failing to protect state resources, and misleading Parliament for suggesting he and his family had paid for all non-security-related features.
One of the key allegations listed in the report stated that costs escalated from an initial R27m to R215m, with a further R31m in works outstanding.
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Nkandla-report-damns-Zuma-20131129