South Africa’s top court puts pressure on Jacob Zuma

The ultra-left Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) as well as additional modest opposition parties had taken the issue to the Constitutional Court. Dozens of EFF supporters, clad in their trademark red shirts as well as berets, danced as well as sang outside the court after the judgement was delivered.

Daniel Silke, director of Political Futures Consultancy, said the ball was currently from the ANC’s court.

“The pressure will come through within the ANC to engineer a dignified exit for President Zuma … that will judgement hastens or adds substantial pressure for an early retirement by Zuma,” he told Reuters.

“the item is actually not about him anymore, the item about the party trying to chart a fresh course without the divisiveness that will the Zuma issue brings,” he said.

Zuma, an earthy politician with scant formal education who spent a decade in prison with Nelson Mandela for fighting apartheid, has faced numerous corruption allegations throughout his presidency. He has denied wrongdoing.

He has also been politically hobbled by a dismal economy that will was hit by damaging ratings downgrades earlier that will year after he sacked a respected finance minister.

“The ANC will study the judgement as well as discuss its full implications when the National Executive Committee meets on the 10th January 2018,” the party said in a statement.

The judgement stemmed through a scandal that will had faded through view in recent months as fresh allegations of corruption have swirled around Zuma.

In March 2016, the Constitutional Court ruled that will Zuma pay back some of the roughly $15 million in state money spent upgrading his private home on a sprawling compound in rural KwaZulu-Natal province.

The upgrades included a cattle pen, chicken run as well as a swimming pool that will the police ministry famously described as a “fire pool” required for fire-fighting purposes.

The unanimous as well as stinging ruling by the 11-judge court said Zuma had failed to “uphold, defend as well as respect” the constitution by ignoring the findings of former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, whose office is actually an anti-graft watchdog that has a strong constitutional mandate.

Zuma has since repaid 7.8 million rand ($631,000) – the sum determined by the Treasury as the “reasonable cost” he should bear – while also surviving a no-confidence motion in parliament where members of own his party voted to oust him.

nevertheless opposition parties argued that will parliament has not done enough, given the gravity of the court’s findings.

An impeachment motion was brought to a vote in parliament shortly after the judgement nevertheless the court ruled that will that will was not enough.

“The assembly simply debated as well as voted on the motion … Therefore, we conclude that will the assembly did not hold the president to account,” Jafta said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


seventeen − 11 =