CLEAN : Zuma must repay unlawful excessive home re

The transcript discusses an investigation into excessive expenditure on non-security items at a private residence. It highlights issues of authority being exceeded, non-compliance with procedures, and improper conduct. The president benefited from these expenditures, and it is suggested that he should bear some costs. The findings substantiate claims of opulence and maladministration.

What was the main issue identified in the investigation regarding authority?

• There was no need for authority.

• Authority was exceeded in some cases.

• Authority was never established.

• Authority was always followed.

What did the investigation conclude about the complainant's allegations?

• The expenditure was justified.

• The allegations were unfounded.

• The allegations of opulence were substantiated.

• The allegations were ignored.

What was the consequence of the excessive expenditure according to the findings?

• It was a minor issue.

• It led to improved security.

• It was beneficial for the community.

• It resulted in improper conduct and maladministration.

How did the president respond to the implementation of measures at his residence?

• He was unaware of the measures.

• He tacitly accepted the measures.

• He rejected all measures.

• He publicly opposed the measures.

Who should bear the cost of the non-security installations according to the findings?

• The security experts should pay.

• The government should cover all costs.

• The president and his family should bear the cost.

• The complainant should be responsible.