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 2 Version 3
Jacob Zuma Violated Constitution, South African Court Rules Jacob Zuma’s Home Improvements Violated South Africa’s Constitution, Court Finds
(about 3 hours later)
JOHANNESBURG — South Africa’s highest court ruled on Thursday that President Jacob 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 — For years, President Jacob G. Zuma of South Africa had derided demands that he repay the state for upgrades to his homestead in Nkandla, about 300 miles southeast of Johannesburg.
Dealing a humiliating rebuke to Mr. Zuma, who had for years derided any suggestions that he pay for the upgrades, the Constitutional Court decided unanimously that the president had “failed to uphold, defend and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.” The president maintained that the home improvements — including a chicken coop, a cattle enclosure, an amphitheater, a swimming pool, a visitor center and a helipad — were necessary to ensure his safety and that the cost should be borne by taxpayers.
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. “Nkaaaandla!” Mr. Zuma said in Parliament last year, drawing out the a’s in Nkandla to mock opposition lawmakers’ pronunciation of the town’s name.
The court’s ruling dealt with 246 million rand, or about $16.3 million at current exchange rates, in upgrades to Mr. Zuma’s private homestead in Nkandla, a town in KwaZulu-Natal Province, after he assumed office in 2009. On Thursday, South Africa’s highest court ruled that Mr. Zuma had violated the Constitution by refusing to pay back some of the millions of dollars in public funds spent on the improvements, saying he flouted laws meant to safeguard the country’s young democracy.
The improvements included a chicken coop, a cattle enclosure, an amphitheater, a swimming pool, a visitor center, a helipad and three houses for staff. Dealing a humiliating rebuke to Mr. Zuma, the Constitutional Court’s 11 justices ruled unanimously that the president had “failed to uphold, defend and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.”
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. The court ordered Mr. Zuma to reimburse the state for some of the upgrades once the national treasury has determined the appropriate amounts. The improvements cost 246 million rand, or about $16.7 million at current exchange rates.
The ruling is significant, experts said, because it checks the conduct of an executive who has been accused of disregarding the nation’s democratic institutions. It also affirmed the constitutional authority of the Office of the Public Protector, which has faced unrelenting attacks from Mr. Zuma’s party, the African National Congress, since ordering Mr. Zuma to reimburse the state in 2014.
In practice, however, the ruling may have little lasting effect beyond embarrassing Mr. Zuma and forcing him to pay back some of the money.
The Constitutional Court has ruled against all three post-apartheid presidents in cases involving 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.”“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. The ruling 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 the A.N.C., 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 has been weakened in recent months by a series of missteps and fresh revelations of corruption. “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, which started impeachment proceedings against the president on Thursday. “If I was him, I’d be drafting a resignation letter.”
In response to the verdict, opposition lawmakers immediately called for the president’s impeachment, although they lack the numbers in the National aAssembly, the lower house of Parliament, to force such a motion. It was unclear how A.N.C. members, who control the National Assembly, would react to the judgment against Mr. Zuma. 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.”
“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.” Aubrey Matshiqi, a political analyst at the Helen Suzman Foundation, an independent pro-democracy group, said that in order to protect their own interests A.N.C. members would be likely to stand by Mr. Zuma, especially with critical municipal elections scheduled for this year.
It was unclear how members of the African National Congress, many of whom are likely to face serious challenges for the first time in municipal elections this year, would react to the judgment against Mr. Zuma.
Some party members, including high-ranking ones , recently criticized Mr. Zuma in another case involving the Gupta family, which has close ties to Mr. Zuma and is 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.
Aubrey Matshiqi, a political analyst at the Helen Suzman Foundation, an independent research organization, said that to protect their interests members of the party would most 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 legal procedures. Some high-ranking A.N.C. members recently criticized Mr. Zuma in another episode involving the Guptas, three brothers who are businessmen with close ties to Mr. Zuma and are accused of influencing government affairs.
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. But the party’s National Executive Committee, stacked with the president’s allies, said two weeks ago that it had full confidence in him.
The office of South Africa’s public protector, 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 2014, South Africa’s public protector’s office, whose duties are to investigate official corruption and misconduct, concluded that Mr. Zuma had misused public funds for his Nkandla home 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.” 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, who 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 his party 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 otherwise 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 having tried to whitewash Mr. Zuma’s actions. The police report invited ridicule by describing the pool as a firefighting safety measure. 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 protector’s directive.
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. The court affirmed on Thursday that the public protector’s order had a “binding effect” on the president, a judgment that experts say clarifies and strengthens the role of the public protector’s.
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.
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.”