Frantic defence of Nkandla spend reaches new lows

AN exhaustively detailed graphic of US President Barack Obama’s heavily armoured black limousine, The Beast, was widely published in news media around the world earlier this year. It contained an incredibly detailed description of the security features fitted to the Cadillac: bodywork made of 12.7cm-thick military-grade armour that can break up projectiles aimed at the vehicle; armourplated, 20cm-thick doors the weight of a cabin door on a Boeing 757 jet; and a chassis with reinforced steel plates running under the car to protect against bombs or grenades rolled underneath it.

Now, the Americans have every reason to be grossly paranoid about the security of the president, given the history of assassinations and shootings associated with that office.

But the US security establishment was bold enough to reveal to the world not only the fact that the car had been fitted with state-of-the-art security features, but precisely what those security features were.

In South Africa, however, our securocrats are becoming downright irrational in their efforts to shield President Jacob Zuma from scrutiny — under the pretext that they are trying to prevent his security from being compromised.

The latest ploy by the ministers has been to threaten the prosecution of anyone, especially news media outlets, that publishes pictures of Zuma’s Nkandla homestead.

According to the security cluster ministers, pictures of Nkandla, such as the aerial shot of the homestead we published in this newspaper last weekend, are classified and their publication contravenes the National Key Points Act.

The ANC has consistently argued that the taxpayers’ millions poured into the Nkandla compound went towards adding security to Zuma’s private home — not his presidential residence.

But in an apparent contradiction, State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele has protested that the US media would never violate the security of its president by publishing images of Obama’s official residence and office — the White House — in the way the South African media has of Zuma’s private home at Nkandla.

And if it were an offence to publish images of Nkandla, how does the government plan to police this criminal act in this era of modern technology? Anyone with a computer and an internet connection can pull these images from Google Earth and other similar sites in a matter of seconds.

As we point out elsewhere in this newspaper, the private homes of former presidents — which, according to Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa are also national key points — have been well documented in the past and will continue to draw the interest of the news media. Why must Nkandla be treated as a special case?

In general, the South African media have no intention of compromising the security of a sitting head of state or any of his predecessors.

We are not suggesting that the government release a detailed plan of the security features at Nkandla or the technical features of his official car, as the Americans have done.

But publishing pictures of a private home that is the subject of multiple probes over the inflated cost of its upgrades can hardly be construed as undermining or violating Zuma’s security.

The public has a right to know and see exactly how and where R208-million of South African taxpayers’ money was spent and what consequences will befall those who manipulated the processes and inflated the figures. It is not only the duty but the obligation of the media to keep the public informed.