Public Works is currently involved in hundreds of projects around the country, with their mandate being to spend on infrastructure and social development. With this in mind, their average allocation for each project will be somewhere between 0.1% and 0.2% of budget (this is a very high estimate in my opinion - they're probably spending less across more projects). Zuma's non-revenue-generating, unnecessary development that has nothing to do with infrastructure nor social development equates to a 0.32% allocation of the national public works budget. This means that they've spent up to 224% more on Zuma's compound than on their average spend on actual deliverable projects that meet their mandate.
That is disgusting. Once again, for those who skim-read, Public Works have spent on average up to 224% more on Zuma's project than they do on average on all actual infrastructure and social development projects. Why? What could possibly necessitate diversion of funds from actual infrastructure projects to Zuma's home, and then warrant a 224% over-spend to boot? This also excludes the R1.5bn freeway being built through his town, that is purported to be funded by a private equity/venture capital company called Korong Capital Partners, however there is no information for this company; they've never been involved in any project ever before to the best of my research; they appear to have some dodgy dealings with an attorney in the US who is profiting form this deal; they are operating on a basis that makes no financial sense; they're simply funding an infrastructure programme with no return on investment even remotely possible.
If we include the freeway project, which I'm quite sure is just a dodgy vehicle to protect Zuma from recourse, the figure jumps to 2172% more than their average national infrastructure spend. So instead of money going to the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project, to mitigate the impact on the country, Public Works chose instead to over-spend on Zuma's home by up to 2000-odd percent. What is clear is that Public Works consider Zuma's house to be at least 224% more important than investment in infrastructure, which is their actual mandate.
So we're stuck with a lower infrastructure budget; larger government backed bonds; excessive spending on unnecessary projects; higher inflation; increased consumer cost burden on top of our funding of Zuma's house; and many, many other tangible, detrimental effects to every single South African, so that Zuma can have a nuclear bunker and mansions that will hardly ever be occupied by actual foreign dignitaries...
That is disgusting. Once again, for those who skim-read, Public Works have spent on average up to 224% more on Zuma's project than they do on average on all actual infrastructure and social development projects. Why? What could possibly necessitate diversion of funds from actual infrastructure projects to Zuma's home, and then warrant a 224% over-spend to boot? This also excludes the R1.5bn freeway being built through his town, that is purported to be funded by a private equity/venture capital company called Korong Capital Partners, however there is no information for this company; they've never been involved in any project ever before to the best of my research; they appear to have some dodgy dealings with an attorney in the US who is profiting form this deal; they are operating on a basis that makes no financial sense; they're simply funding an infrastructure programme with no return on investment even remotely possible.
If we include the freeway project, which I'm quite sure is just a dodgy vehicle to protect Zuma from recourse, the figure jumps to 2172% more than their average national infrastructure spend. So instead of money going to the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project, to mitigate the impact on the country, Public Works chose instead to over-spend on Zuma's home by up to 2000-odd percent. What is clear is that Public Works consider Zuma's house to be at least 224% more important than investment in infrastructure, which is their actual mandate.
So we're stuck with a lower infrastructure budget; larger government backed bonds; excessive spending on unnecessary projects; higher inflation; increased consumer cost burden on top of our funding of Zuma's house; and many, many other tangible, detrimental effects to every single South African, so that Zuma can have a nuclear bunker and mansions that will hardly ever be occupied by actual foreign dignitaries...
