page_title: Jacob Zuma
section_title: Nkandla homestead and Public Protector findings
hierarchical_section_title: Jacob Zuma / President of South Africa (2009–2018) / Nkandla homestead and Public Protector findings
caption_attribution_description: English: South African President Jacob Zuma visiting Isfahan, Iran after a state visit of country
context_page_description: Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma is a South African politician
  who served as the fourth President of South Africa from the 2009 general election until his resignation on 14 February 2018. Zuma is also referred to by his initials JZ and his clan name Msholozi.
  Zuma served as Deputy President of South Africa from 1999 to 2005, but was dismissed by President Thabo Mbeki in 2005 after Zuma's financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, was convicted of soliciting a bribe for Zuma. Zuma was nonetheless elected President of the African National Congress on 18 December 2007 after defeating Mbeki at the ANC conference in Polokwane. On 20 September 2008, Mbeki announced his resignation after being recalled by the ANC's National Executive Committee. The recall came after South African High Court Judge Christopher Nicholson ruled Mbeki had improperly interfered with the operations of the National Prosecuting Authority, including the prosecution of Jacob Zuma for corruption.
  Zuma led the ANC to victory in the 2009 general election and was elected President of South Africa.
context_section_description: After Zuma became president, his private homestead at Nkandla in rural KwaZulu-Natal was substantially upgraded by the state. In November 2013 opposition parties accused Zuma of having used taxpayer funds not only for security improvements, but also private additions and improvements to his home. Zuma answered in parliament that he was unaware of the scale of the work, but agreed to two investigations, one to probe its rising costs, and another to determine any breaches of parliamentary spending rules. The Public Protector's report "Secure in Comfort" found that Zuma and his family had benefited improperly from the upgrades, that a swimming pool (claimed to be a "fire pool"), amphitheatre, cattle kraal and chicken run were not security features, and that Zuma had violated the executive ethics code and had not asked "questions regarding the scale, cost and affordability of the Nkandla project." After rival reports by the police's Special Investigative Unit and a parliamentary ad hoc committee attempted to exonerate Zuma, opposition parties went to the Constitutional Court to establish whether the Public Protector's report was binding. Shortly before the Constitutional Court hearing in February 2016, Zuma's attorneys recognised that the Public Protector's findings were binding and said that Zuma was ready to pay back part of the cost of the upgrade. On 31 March 2016, the Constitutional Court delivered a unanimous judgement in Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others stating that the Public Protector's report was binding and that Zuma and the National Assembly had failed to uphold the country's constitution. The court ordered National Treasury to determine the amount that Zuma must pay back and ordered Zuma to do so within 45 days of the court's approval of the National Treasury report.
  In the immediate wake of the judgment, Julius Malema and Mmusi Maimane, the leaders of the two victorious applicants in the case, called for Zuma to step down. However, Zuma sought to downplay the judgment. In a press statement the following evening, he said he welcomed the judgment and had always accepted the Public Protector's reports were binding, and noted that the Court found he had been entitled to institute a parallel investigative process and had acted "honestly" and "in good faith". Legal commentators condemned these claims as serious misrepresentations of the judgment. They pointed out that it could not possibly have been the case, as Zuma claimed, that he was merely adopting the High Court's approach to the powers of the Public Protector in its DA v SABC judgment, because that was handed down six weeks after Zuma signaled his intention not to comply with her report. Commentators also condemned the Presidency's statement that the Court had never found Zuma breached his office, since that was the judgment's unmistakable implication.
  But the ANC continued to support Zuma. The ANC Women's League had released a statement hours after the judgment saying its faith in Zuma "remains unshaken". Secretary-General Gwede Mantashe, speaking on behalf of the so-called Top Six, said he "welcomed" Zuma's apologetic statement but that calls for his impeachment were "over-exaggerated". Chief Whip Jackson Mthembu and Deputy Minister of Justice John Jeffery took the view that, although Zuma had breached the Constitution, the breach was not "serious". The impeachment bid by opposition MPs on 5 April 2016 failed by over 120 votes. Some were surprised that even Zuma's opponents within the ANC like Cyril Ramaphosa and Pravin Gordhan had voted against the motion. The Congress of the People, an opposition party, said it would boycott parliamentary proceedings in light of the National Assembly's failure to implement the Court's judgment.
  Nevertheless, many analysts said the judgment might prove a fatal blow to Zuma, although factional battles within the ANC would be the ultimate decider. One suggested that powerful ANC members had lost faith in Zuma and might move to oust him at a more opportune moment. The South African Commun
caption: Zuma and his fourth wife, Thobeka Madiba-Zuma, during a visit of the Iranian city of Isfahan
exif: {"Image Orientation": "Horizontal (normal)"}