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 4 Version 5
Jacob Zuma’s Home Improvements Violated South Africa’s Constitution, Court Finds Jacob Zuma’s Home Improvements Violated South Africa’s Constitution, Court Finds
(about 1 hour later)
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.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.
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 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.
“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.“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.
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.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.
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.”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 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 court ordered Mr. Zuma to reimburse the state for some of the upgrades once the national treasury 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.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.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.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 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.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.
“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.”“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.”
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.” 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 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.”
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. 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 probably stand by Mr. Zuma, especially with critical municipal elections scheduled for this year.
“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.”
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.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.
But the party’s National Executive Committee, stacked with the president’s allies, said two weeks ago that it had full confidence in him.But the party’s National Executive Committee, stacked with the president’s allies, said two weeks ago that it had full confidence in him.
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 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, who 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 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.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.
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.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.
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. 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 office.