Skip to main content
south africa

South Africa’s Constitutional Court ruled Thursday, March 31, 2016, that President Jacob Zuma “failed to uphold” the law when he did not pay back some state funds used to upgrade his personal residence.Schalk van Zuydam/The Associated Press

South Africa's highest court has dealt a devastating blow to President Jacob Zuma, ruling that he violated the Constitution by refusing to pay back state funds spent on personal benefits for his village home.

The ruling, after two years of denials and delays by the President, will give powerful ammunition to opposition factions in the governing African National Congress that are already manoeuvring against him.

Mr. Zuma has suffered a barrage of attacks in recent months for his alleged corruption, including his close relationship with a business group, the Gupta family, who reportedly influenced the appointment of key cabinet ministers for their own benefit.

Within minutes of Thursday's court ruling, opposition parties vowed to launch impeachment proceedings against Mr. Zuma in Parliament. The impeachment move is unlikely to force his immediate removal, since his party still holds a parliamentary majority, but the court ruling will embolden his ANC rivals to challenge his party leadership and nudge him toward the exit.

In a strongly worded judgment, the Constitutional Court of South Africa concluded that Mr. Zuma "failed to uphold, defend and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the land."

The unanimous judgment said Mr. Zuma had shown "substantial disregard" for the binding decision in 2014 of an independent watchdog, the Public Protector, who is constitutionally empowered to order action on government wrongdoing.

Mr. Zuma must now use his personal funds to pay back a portion of the $27-million (U.S.) that was spent by the government on his private family home in the village of Nkandla, the court said. He was found to have benefited from luxuries such as a swimming pool, an amphitheatre and a cattle corral that had nothing to do with state security requirements.

The court ordered the national finance department to calculate a fair percentage within 60 days, and instructed Mr. Zuma to pay back the money within 45 days after the court has approved the amount.

The ruling also sharply criticized the ANC-dominated Parliament for "flouting its obligations" by failing to hold Mr. Zuma accountable. Instead of obeying the Public Protector's decision, Mr. Zuma and Parliament set up their own "investigations," which rejected the Public Protector's report and concluded that Mr. Zuma had done nothing wrong.

His allies, including a cabinet minister whom he appointed to "review" the issue, claimed that every element of the $27-million upgrade was essential for security – that even the swimming pool was actually a "fire pool" to supply water for firefighters in case of a fire in the home.

When the Public Protector's report ordered Mr. Zuma to pay back some of the money, he ridiculed the report, and his allies launched a vicious attack on the Public Protector, Thuli Madonsela. They questioned her powers and rejected her conclusions. Some even claimed she was a CIA spy.

After the ruling on Thursday, Ms. Madonsela revealed she had even been subjected to a criminal investigation by a senior police unit because the police had refused to accept that her decisions were binding. She said she hoped the police now accept that she is not a "criminal." She also noted wryly that powerful leaders should not look for "praise-singers" for their actions.

The ruling by the Constitutional Court is a huge victory for Ms. Madonsela. Not only did it uphold her independence and constitutional powers to issue binding decisions, it also praised her office as an essential democratic weapon on behalf of the poor and marginalized. The court described her office as a fearless David fighting against the Goliath of corruption. And it said her office must have "teeth" that can "bite" corruption and wrongdoing.

In a brief statement after the ruling, the ANC said it "respects the unanimous judgment" of the Constitutional Court and "welcomes" the clarity that it provided on the Public Protector's role.

A statement by Mr. Zuma said he respects the ruling and would reflect on its implications and "determine the appropriate action" in consultation with other institutions.

Mmusi Maimane, leader of the opposition Democratic Alliance, immediately announced the impeachment plan. "If I was President Jacob Zuma, I would be preparing my letter of resignation," he said.

Julius Malema, leader of another opposition party, the Economic Freedom Fighters, said his party would no longer recognize Mr. Zuma as president and would even physically prevent him from speaking in Parliament.

Follow related authors and topics

Authors and topics you follow will be added to your personal news feed in Following.

Interact with The Globe