Jacob Zuma breached constitution over home upgrades
Thu Mar 31, 2016 03:12:pm Africa
3K By sosa hills
South Africa's top court has ruled that the president, Jacob Zuma, failed to uphold the constitution when he ignored a state order to repay some of the government funds used in an £11m upgrade to his private residence, including a swimming pool and amphitheatre.
The court also ruled that parliament, which is dominated by the ruling African National Congress, had failed in its obligations by not holding Zuma to account.
In what will be a costly judgment for Zuma in financial and political terms, the constitutional court ordered that he must personally pay back the cost of those improvements to his residence, Nkandla, that were not essential for security, including a cattle enclosure, a visitor centre and a chicken run.
The national treasury should determine the reasonable costs within 60 days, the judges ruled, with Zuma required to pay the bill just over a month later. He has denied any wrongdoing.
Opposition parties, who referred the case to the constitutional court, have said that they will seek the president's impeachment.
The treasury had 60 days to determine how much he should repay, it added.
The ruling is a victory for the opposition, which said it would push for Mr Zuma's impeachment.
It accused him of using "ill-gotten wealth" to upgrade his home with a swimming pool and amphitheatre.
Mr Zuma has denied the allegation.
An anti-corruption body, known as the public protector, ruled in 2014 that he had "unduly benefited" from the upgrades, and should pay back the money.
In a unanimous judgement, the Constitutional Court said that Mr Zuma's failure to repay the money was "inconsistent" with the constitution.
"The president failed to uphold, defend and respect the constitution of the Republic," it added.
The court also ruled that parliament, which is dominated by the ruling African National Congress, had failed in its obligations by not holding Zuma to account.
In what will be a costly judgment for Zuma in financial and political terms, the constitutional court ordered that he must personally pay back the cost of those improvements to his residence, Nkandla, that were not essential for security, including a cattle enclosure, a visitor centre and a chicken run.
The national treasury should determine the reasonable costs within 60 days, the judges ruled, with Zuma required to pay the bill just over a month later. He has denied any wrongdoing.
Opposition parties, who referred the case to the constitutional court, have said that they will seek the president's impeachment.
The treasury had 60 days to determine how much he should repay, it added.
The ruling is a victory for the opposition, which said it would push for Mr Zuma's impeachment.
It accused him of using "ill-gotten wealth" to upgrade his home with a swimming pool and amphitheatre.
Mr Zuma has denied the allegation.
An anti-corruption body, known as the public protector, ruled in 2014 that he had "unduly benefited" from the upgrades, and should pay back the money.
In a unanimous judgement, the Constitutional Court said that Mr Zuma's failure to repay the money was "inconsistent" with the constitution.
"The president failed to uphold, defend and respect the constitution of the Republic," it added.
Related News
Leave a comment...