SANDF chief denies claims
A MILITARY general has denied claims that he refused to co-operate with an inquiry into Nkandla spending.
Media reports yesterday alleged that Lieutenant-General Vejay Ramlakan refused to appear before the SANDF board of inquiry into defence spending on Nkandla, and that he was under pressure to take early retirement.
“The assertion in Beeld that the board of inquiry (BOI) failed partly because Lt-Gen Ramlakan refused to testify is a blue lie,” said Ramlakan in a statement issued by the Department of Defence.
“Lt-Gen Ramlakan has given a full statement before the BOI and has given extensive evidence. Although there was a period of absence, he has been available to the BOI ever since. This has been confirmed by the Department of Defence. “He is still available.” Ramlakan said the military facilities at Nkandla were not inside President Jacob Zuma’s property, but adjacent to it on land allocated to the state.
“All existing Department of Defence guidelines in this regard were complied with to the letter and spirit,” said Ramlakan, in reference to defence spending on Nkandla.
He said the discussions with the SANDF chief, General Solly Shoke, about his future “are part of normal career management and have nothing to do with the BOI”.
Ramlakan, 57, is a former Umkhonto weSizwe member who served more than seven years as surgeon-general at the South African Military Health Services (SAMHS) until last year, when he took up the position of corporate staff chief.
In April, Minister of Defence Nosiviwe MapisaNqakula told Parliament that the BOI had been convened to look into defence spending on the Nkandla project.
This followed a question by the DA on how much the defence force had spent on the SAMHS clinic at Nkandla since 2009, among others. MapisaNqakula declined to answer, on the grounds that a board of inquiry was under way.
Meanwhile, in Durban on Wednesday, Public Works officials blamed for excessive spending on Nkandla said they no longer wanted the media at their disciplinary hearings.
Initially, the Public Servants Association said officials did not object to the reporters’ presence.
Then it said the employees had reconsidered and were concerned about the right to privacy and prejudice against whistle-blowers.
Independent Newspapers and Media 24 applied for journalists to be allowed access to the hearings on the grounds of public interest in the spending. This was denied.