This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-35529190

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 6 Version 7
Nkandla: South Africa's Zuma challenged in top court South Africa's Zuma makes U-turn over Nkandla revamp money
(about 1 hour later)
South Africa's top court is hearing an opposition case that the president must repay some of the $23m (£15m) of state funds used to renovate his home. South Africa's President Jacob Zuma has made a U-turn in court over his refusal to repay some of the $23m (£15m) of government money used to upgrade his home in Nkandla village.
A 2014 report said Jacob Zuma had "benefited unduly" from the upgrades, which include a swimming pool. His lawyer has admitted he was wrong to ignore the report of an anti-corruption watchdog ordering him to pay back money spent on non-security features.
He has offered to repay the money and the case is now about whether he broke the law by ignoring that report. A swimming pool, amphitheatre and cattle enclosure were built.
Protesters, led by former Zuma ally turned fierce opponent Julius Malema, have marched to the court. Opposition activists protested outside court, shouting "Zuma must fall".
Police put up a strong show of force, as thousands of protesters, led by Julius Malema's left-wing Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), marched to the court in the main city, Johannesburg.
Latest updates from court and protestsLatest updates from court and protests
How Zuma's home has grownHow Zuma's home has grown
The demonstration was against "corruption and cronyism", a spokesman for his Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) said. The protest was against "corruption and cronyism" in government, the EFF said.
The opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) also organised its own protest outside the court in Johannesburg, where there is a strong police presence. The main opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) also organised its own demonstration.
Mr Zuma's ANC party called the protests a "political exercise". The governing African National Congress (ANC) denounced the marches as a "political exercise".
The opposition is hoping that the case, being heard by South Africa's highest court, the Constitutional Court, will pave the way for impeachment proceedings against the president.
'Unlawful enrichment''Unlawful enrichment'
The constitutional court is being asked to rule on whether the government flouted the law by ignoring recommendations of the 2014 report by the anti-corruption watchdog, known as the Public Protector. The opposition parties want the court to rule that My Zuma flouted the constitution by failing to pay back the money when the anti-corruption watchdog, known as the Public Protector, said in a 2014 report that Mr Zuma should do so, as he had "unduly benefited" from the upgrade.
Mr Zuma's lawyer Jeremy Gauntlett conceded that the report was binding on him, and said the president was prepared to repay within 90 days money spent on "non-security features" at his private home in his home village of Nkandla in KwaZulu-Natal province. At the time, the police minister defended the expenditure as necessary security upgrades, saying the swimming pool was, in fact, a fire pool that could be used in the event a fire broke out at the residence.
Mr Zuma had been cleared of wrongdoing in a police report over his residence.
The police minister had said the upgrades were made to boost security, and the swimming pool was, in fact, a "fire pool" that could be used in the event a fire broke out at the residence.
The upgrade also include a chicken run and amphitheatre.
The hashtag #PayBackTheMoney, mirroring the slogan used by EFF members to taunt the president, has been trending in South Africa, as people comment on the case:
The saga has become a major political scandal, at one point sparking scuffles inside parliament.
EFF lawyer Wim Trengrove told the court the president had defied the Public Protector to unlawfully "enrich himself", South Africa's private News24 website reports.
"His conduct at the time and response to the report was in violation of the constitution," Mr Trengrove is quoted as telling the judges.
The case comes at a difficult time for Mr Zuma, who has also been under fire over his handling of the finance ministry, after he sacked two ministers in a week.
Many South Africans also accuse his government of not doing enough to tackle corruption and poverty.
Analysis: Milton Nkosi, BBC News, JohannesburgAnalysis: Milton Nkosi, BBC News, Johannesburg
Even though President Zuma has now offered to repay the money, the opposition EFF and Democratic Alliance insisted on pressing ahead with the case.Even though President Zuma has now offered to repay the money, the opposition EFF and Democratic Alliance insisted on pressing ahead with the case.
It is not that they do not want the president to pay; they do.It is not that they do not want the president to pay; they do.
But they want to set a precedent by reinforcing the powers of the Public Protector, the corruption watchdog office set up under the country's constitution.But they want to set a precedent by reinforcing the powers of the Public Protector, the corruption watchdog office set up under the country's constitution.
Mr Zuma had justified his reluctance to repay the state by reducing Thuli Madonsela's findings to mere recommendations and said they were not equal to orders given by a court of law.Mr Zuma had justified his reluctance to repay the state by reducing Thuli Madonsela's findings to mere recommendations and said they were not equal to orders given by a court of law.
The EFF smells blood - it hopes the Constitutional Court will conclude that the president contravened the constitution and therefore violated his oath of office.The EFF smells blood - it hopes the Constitutional Court will conclude that the president contravened the constitution and therefore violated his oath of office.
The opposition would then no doubt demand the president's impeachment.The opposition would then no doubt demand the president's impeachment.
Mr Zuma's lawyer Jeremy Gauntlett conceded in court that the report was "binding" on the president, and he was prepared to repay the money within 90 days.
However, he denied that Mr Zuma had violated the constitution.
The hashtag #PayBackTheMoney, mirroring the slogan used by EFF members to taunt the president, has been trending in South Africa:
The saga has become a major political scandal, at one point sparking scuffles inside parliament.
EFF lawyer Wim Trengrove told the court the president had defied the Public Protector to unlawfully "enrich himself", South Africa's private News24 website reports.
"His conduct at the time and response to the report was in violation of the constitution," Mr Trengrove is quoted as telling the judges.
The case comes at a difficult time for Mr Zuma, who has also been under fire over his handling of the finance ministry, after he sacked two ministers in a week last year.
Many South Africans also accuse his government of not doing enough to tackle corruption and poverty.