This article is from the source 'guardian' 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 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/29/south-africa-parliament-jacob-zuma-court

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
South Africa parliament failed to hold Zuma to account, court rules Jacob Zuma not held to account over home upgrade scandal, court rules
(about 1 hour later)
South Africa’s constitutional court has ruled that parliament failed to hold President Jacob Zuma to account over a scandal related to state-funded upgrades to his home and must launch proceedings that could remove him from office. South Africa’s top court has ruled that parliament failed to hold President Jacob Zuma to account in a scandal over multimillion-dollar upgrades to his private home, in a decision likely to escalate pressure on him to resign.
The ruling is the latest judicial setback for Zuma, who has faced widespread public demands to step down before a general election in 2019. It was not immediately clear what steps parliament would take. The constitutional court’s ruling followed its conclusion last year that Zuma violated the constitution when he benefited inappropriately from state funding for his Nkandla home. It was one of a series of presidential scandals that have tarnished the reputation of the ruling African National Congress, the main anti-apartheid movement that has led South Africa since the first all-race elections in 1994.
“We conclude that the assembly did not hold the president to account … The assembly must put in place a mechanism that could be used for the removal of the president from office,” Judge Chris Jafta said, handing down the judgment, which was supported by a majority of the court and shown on live television. Zuma has survived opposition efforts to oust him in votes of no confidence in parliament, where the ANC party has a majority. Frustrated by setbacks in the National Assembly, the leftwing Economic Freedom Fighters and other small opposition parties went to court as part of their campaign to impeach Zuma, who has lost support among ruling party loyalists.
“Properly interpreted, section 89 implicitly imposes an obligation on the assembly to make rules specially tailored for the removal of the president from office. By omitting to include such rules, the assembly has failed to fulfil this obligation.” Zuma was replaced as party leader this month by Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa, a critic of the corruption that has undermined South Africa’s economy.
The ultra-left Economic Freedom Fighters and other small opposition parties had taken the issue to the constitutional court. “We conclude that the assembly did not hold the president to account,” said Chris Jafta, a constitutional court judge who read out the ruling. He called for parliament to institute rules that would provide for a president’s removal.
The president is in a weakened position after his deputy, Cyril Ramaphosa, was narrowly elected leader of Zuma’s ruling African National Congress (ANC) last week, though Zuma’s faction retains key positions in the party and he has survived no-confidence votes. The court ruling cited a constitutional provision that says parliament “may remove” a president from office by a two-thirds majority for a “serious violation” of the law, as well as a separate requirement that constitutional obligations must be “performed diligently and without delay”.
“The ANC will study the judgment and discuss its full implications when the national executive committee meets on 10 January 2018,” the party said. Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng disagreed with the majority ruling, describing it as judicial overreach.
The ruling party said it will study the ruling and discuss it at a high-level meeting on 10 January.