The Special Investigating Unit has secured a judgment against the former architect of Jacob Zuma's private residence in Nkandla.
The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) says it has secured a judgment against the former architect of Jacob Zuma’s private residence in Nkandla.
The Special Tribunal’s order holds Minenhle Makhanya liable for R147.3 million in losses incurred by the Department of Public Works (DPW) for the “security upgrades” at the compound.
The SIU noted that Makhanya was the former architect and principal agent responsible for the security upgrades at the residence.
An investigation into the Nkandla security upgrades was authorised in a 2013 proclamation.
This directed the SIU to investigate allegations regarding the procurement of goods, works, and services by the Department of Public Works (DPW) for the project.
The SIU investigated, seeking to determine whether procurement was conducted in a manner that was not fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, or cost-effective.
It was also tasked with recovering any financial losses suffered by the state as a consequence of unlawful conduct.
The R147 million Makhanya has been ordered to pay represents the financial loss suffered by the DPW as a result of unlawful conduct in the project, the SIU said.
“The judgment, delivered on Wednesday, 26 August 2026, found that Makhanya’s appointment and subsequent conduct in the Nkandla upgrades were unlawful and resulted in significant financial loss to the state,” it said.
The SIU said that, following Zuma’s election as President of the Republic in 2009, he became entitled to state-funded security and protection for himself, his family and his private residence.
Subsequently, the South African Police Service (SAPS) and South African National Defence Force (SANDF) conducted security assessments and identified additional security measures, including healthcare-related requirements and other installations and services required at the residence.
Based on these assessments and the required approvals, the DPW initially estimated the project cost at R27.9 million.
This amount was authorised, and funding was secured by the department’s Planned Maintenance Budget Committee on 11 August 2009.
Makhanya was appointed as the principal agent responsible for implementing the project. His letter of appointment was issued on 27 August 2009.
However, the Tribunal found that his appointment was not preceded by a competitive bidding or open tender process, and that there was no emergency or other lawful justification for bypassing these.
Makhanya was also not listed as a supplier with DPW.
Under his watch, the money spent on security upgrades ballooned to over R216 million.
The SIU investigation found that, following his appointment, Makhanya authorised and oversaw the implementation of works and improvements that went beyond the security measures identified by the SAPS and SANDF.
As a result, the project cost escalated from the approved R27.9 million to R216 million.
Among the structures and works Makhanya authorised were
These add-ons alone cost R68.5 million.
The Tribunal found that Makhanya authorised and certified payments for structures and services that were not required by the security assessments.
He also failed to obtain the necessary written approvals for variations and over-designs, to certify payments above market-related costs, and to approve payments for work that had either not been performed or had not been properly accounted for.
The Tribunal found further that Makhanya breached several statutory, professional and contractual obligations.
Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected Makhanya’s defences, including his contention that he acted within the scope of his authority by implementing the instructions and decisions of the SAPS and the SANDF.
The Tribunal also rejected his arguments relating to prescription and time-barring of the claims.
While the Tribunal acknowledged that Makhanya did not act alone, “as architect and principal agent, he bore the responsibility to ensure that the DPW did not incur fruitless and wasteful expenditure,” it said.
The Tribunal also ordered Makhanya to pay the costs of the legal proceedings, including the costs of two counsel.
The SIU reduced the total claim by R7.8 million, which Zuma repaid as a contribution for non-security-related upgrades.
This amount will be deducted from the total deemed just and equitable for repayment by the Tribunal, it said.
“In line with the Special Investigating Unit and Special Tribunals Act 74 of 1996, the SIU will refer any evidence of criminal conduct uncovered during its investigation to the National Prosecuting Authority for further action,” it said.
Follow the story
