This article is from the source 'nytimes' 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.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/world/africa/south-africa-court-president-jacob-zuma.html
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Jacob Zuma Violated Constitution, South African Court Rules | Jacob Zuma Violated Constitution, South African Court Rules |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| JOHANNESBURG — South Africa’s highest court ruled on Thursday that President Jacob G. Zuma had violated the Constitution by refusing to pay back part of millions of dollars in public funds used for private home improvements, saying he had flouted laws meant to safeguard this country’s young democracy. | JOHANNESBURG — South Africa’s highest court ruled on Thursday that President Jacob G. Zuma had violated the Constitution by refusing to pay back part of millions of dollars in public funds used for private home improvements, saying he had flouted laws meant to safeguard this country’s young democracy. |
| Dealing a humiliating rebuke to Mr. Zuma, who had for years derided any suggestions that he pay for the upgrades, the Constitutional Court said unanimously that the president had “failed to uphold, defend and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.” | |
| The court ordered Mr. Zuma to reimburse the state for certain upgrades, as demanded by the state body charged with investigating official corruption, once the national treasury has determined the appropriate amounts. | The court ordered Mr. Zuma to reimburse the state for certain upgrades, as demanded by the state body charged with investigating official corruption, once the national treasury has determined the appropriate amounts. |
| The court’s ruling dealt with 246 million rand, or about $16.7 million at current exchange rates, in upgrades made to Mr. Zuma’s private homestead in Nkandla, a town in KwaZulu-Natal Province, after he assumed office in 2009. | The court’s ruling dealt with 246 million rand, or about $16.7 million at current exchange rates, in upgrades made to Mr. Zuma’s private homestead in Nkandla, a town in KwaZulu-Natal Province, after he assumed office in 2009. |
| The improvements included a chicken coop, a cattle enclosure, an amphitheater, a swimming pool, a visitor center, a helipad and three houses for staff. | The improvements included a chicken coop, a cattle enclosure, an amphitheater, a swimming pool, a visitor center, a helipad and three houses for staff. |
| The Constitutional Court has ruled against all three post-apartheid presidents in a handful of cases focusing on technical legal matters, said Pierre de Vos, a constitutional scholar at the University of Cape Town. | |
| “What makes this different is that it is about personal benefits accruing to the president and his family, and the failure of the president to put a stop to it,” he said. “But how significant this is will depend on how the governing party responds. It’s a political issue now.” | |
| The ruling by the court was the final legal verdict in a long-running scandal that, to many South Africans, has come to symbolize the corruption and arrogance in Mr. Zuma’s administration and in his party, the African National Congress, which has governed South Africa since the end of apartheid in 1994. | |
| But it quickly opened yet another front in the political battles surrounding Mr. Zuma, who, in recent months, has been weakened by a series of missteps and fresh revelations of corruption. | But it quickly opened yet another front in the political battles surrounding Mr. Zuma, who, in recent months, has been weakened by a series of missteps and fresh revelations of corruption. |
| In response to the verdict, opposition lawmakers immediately called for the president’s impeachment, although they lack the numbers in the national assembly to force such a motion. | In response to the verdict, opposition lawmakers immediately called for the president’s impeachment, although they lack the numbers in the national assembly to force such a motion. |
| “The constitution of South Africa has been upheld today, and Zuma must subject himself to that,” said Mmusi Maimane, the leader of the main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance. “If I was him, I’d be drafting a resignation letter.” | “The constitution of South Africa has been upheld today, and Zuma must subject himself to that,” said Mmusi Maimane, the leader of the main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance. “If I was him, I’d be drafting a resignation letter.” |
| It was unclear how A.N.C. members, many of whom are likely to face serious challenges for the first time in municipal elections later this year, would react to the judgment against Mr. Zuma. | It was unclear how A.N.C. members, many of whom are likely to face serious challenges for the first time in municipal elections later this year, would react to the judgment against Mr. Zuma. |
| Some, including high-ranking A.N.C. members, recently criticized Mr. Zuma in another case involving the Gupta family, which has close ties to Mr. Zuma and are believed to have influenced government affairs. | Some, including high-ranking A.N.C. members, recently criticized Mr. Zuma in another case involving the Gupta family, which has close ties to Mr. Zuma and are believed to have influenced government affairs. |
| The party’s National Executive Committee, stacked with allies of the president, said after a three-day summit meeting two weeks ago that it had full confidence in him. | The party’s National Executive Committee, stacked with allies of the president, said after a three-day summit meeting two weeks ago that it had full confidence in him. |
| Aubrey Matshiqi, a political analyst at the Helen Suzman Foundation, said that in order to protect their own interests A.N.C. members would likely stand by Mr. Zuma, including in Parliament. | Aubrey Matshiqi, a political analyst at the Helen Suzman Foundation, said that in order to protect their own interests A.N.C. members would likely stand by Mr. Zuma, including in Parliament. |
| “The A.N.C. will use its parliamentary majority to quash any impeachment motion,” he said. “It’s not going to happen in an election year. It’s not in the interests of the A.N.C. even if it’s the right thing to do.” | “The A.N.C. will use its parliamentary majority to quash any impeachment motion,” he said. “It’s not going to happen in an election year. It’s not in the interests of the A.N.C. even if it’s the right thing to do.” |
| Mr. Matshiqi added that the court ruling had stopped short of finding Mr. Zuma guilty of having deliberately violated the Constitution, leaving open the possibility that he had misunderstood the proper legal procedures. | Mr. Matshiqi added that the court ruling had stopped short of finding Mr. Zuma guilty of having deliberately violated the Constitution, leaving open the possibility that he had misunderstood the proper legal procedures. |
| Until recently, Mr. Zuma had consistently refused to pay back any of the money, arguing that the improvements were security-related and should be borne by the government. | Until recently, Mr. Zuma had consistently refused to pay back any of the money, arguing that the improvements were security-related and should be borne by the government. |
| South Africa’s public protector’s office, whose duties are to investigate official corruption and misconduct, concluded in 2014 that Mr. Zuma had misused public funds and directed him to repay a “reasonable proportion,” without specifying an amount. | South Africa’s public protector’s office, whose duties are to investigate official corruption and misconduct, concluded in 2014 that Mr. Zuma had misused public funds and directed him to repay a “reasonable proportion,” without specifying an amount. |
| In the court ruling, Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng described the public protector’s office, which was set up after the end of apartheid, as a vital part of South Africa’s democracy and a “gift” to the nation. | In the court ruling, Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng described the public protector’s office, which was set up after the end of apartheid, as a vital part of South Africa’s democracy and a “gift” to the nation. |
| In a country with vast poverty, he said the office defended the voiceless against the powerful and described it as “the embodiment of a biblical David, that the public is, fights the most powerful and very well-resourced Goliath, that impropriety and corruption by government officials are.” | |
| But Mr. Zuma ignored the directive from the public protector’s office, and the A.N.C. fiercely attacked the public protector, Thulisile Madonsela, who has been praised for aggressively carrying out her duties during her seven-year term, which ends later this year. | But Mr. Zuma ignored the directive from the public protector’s office, and the A.N.C. fiercely attacked the public protector, Thulisile Madonsela, who has been praised for aggressively carrying out her duties during her seven-year term, which ends later this year. |
| The A.N.C.-dominated National Assembly issued its own findings after the public protector’s directive in 2014 exonerating the president, as did the national police in a report. Both the assembly and the police were widely condemned in the news media and by critics as attempting to whitewash Mr. Zuma’s actions. The police report invited ridicule by describing the pool as a firefighting safety measure. | The A.N.C.-dominated National Assembly issued its own findings after the public protector’s directive in 2014 exonerating the president, as did the national police in a report. Both the assembly and the police were widely condemned in the news media and by critics as attempting to whitewash Mr. Zuma’s actions. The police report invited ridicule by describing the pool as a firefighting safety measure. |
| Judge Mogoeng said that Mr. Zuma and the National Assembly had acted unlawfully by trying to circumvent the public prosecutor’s office and should have followed proper legal procedures by challenging the office’s report in the courts. | Judge Mogoeng said that Mr. Zuma and the National Assembly had acted unlawfully by trying to circumvent the public prosecutor’s office and should have followed proper legal procedures by challenging the office’s report in the courts. |
| In February, after two years of steadfastly refusing to repay the government, Mr. Zuma surprised opponents and allies by offering to reimburse some of the costs. The offer, made by his lawyers in the Constitutional Court, acknowledged that he had been bound to follow the public prosecutor’s directive. | In February, after two years of steadfastly refusing to repay the government, Mr. Zuma surprised opponents and allies by offering to reimburse some of the costs. The offer, made by his lawyers in the Constitutional Court, acknowledged that he had been bound to follow the public prosecutor’s directive. |
| The court affirmed on Thursday that the public prosecutor’s order had a “binding effect” on the president, a judgment that experts say clarifies and strengthens the role of the public prosecutor. | The court affirmed on Thursday that the public prosecutor’s order had a “binding effect” on the president, a judgment that experts say clarifies and strengthens the role of the public prosecutor. |
| In a statement, the government said that Mr. Zuma “will reflect on the judgment and its implications on the state and government, and will in consultation with other impacted institutions of state determine the appropriate action.” | In a statement, the government said that Mr. Zuma “will reflect on the judgment and its implications on the state and government, and will in consultation with other impacted institutions of state determine the appropriate action.” |