The world is changing fast and to keep up you need local knowledge with global context.
“The assembly did not hold the president to account as was required,” the Constitutional Court said in a majority ruling read by Judge Chris Jafta at a hearing in Johannesburg on Friday. Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng disagreed with the judgment, describing it as “a textbook case of judicial overreach.”
Former graft ombudsman Thuli Madonsela found in 2014 that Zuma unduly benefited from a taxpayer-funded R215.9 million ($17 million) upgrade of his private home and ordered him to pay back part of the money. The governing African National Congress tried to use its majority in Parliament to shield Zuma from liability, but the Constitutional Court ruled last year that he’d violated his oath of office by failing to comply with Madonsela’s directive and ordered the Treasury to determine how much he owed.
While Zuma complied with the Treasury’s instruction to repay R7.81 million and apologized, three opposition parties – the Economic Freedom Fighters, United Democratic Movement and Congress of the People – argued that Parliament remained in violation of its constitutional obligation to hold him to account and filed a lawsuit aimed at compelling it to rectify the matter. Zuma and Parliament were ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Section 89 of South Africa’s constitution enables the National Assembly to remove the president with the backing of at least two-thirds of lawmakers if he seriously violates the law, is guilty of serious misconduct or lacks the ability to perform his functions. It doesn’t spell out the misdemeanors that would warrant firing him — a shortfall the court said must be addressed within 120 days.
Parliament has started a process to outline a procedure to implement section 89 and will finalized these rules in line with the court’s order, it said in an emailed statement.
Zuma, a former intelligence operative who’s ruled Africa’s most-industrialized economy since May 2009, has been implicated in a succession of other scandals and the new probe will add to pressure on him to step down before the end of his second and final term in 2019. His deputy Cyril Ramaphosa replaced him as ANC leader in December, making him the front-runner to become the nation’s next president.
“This just adds to the existing pressures that Jacob Zuma is already laboring under,’’ Daniel Silke, director of Cape Town-based Political Futures Consultancy said by phone in Cape Town. “This is really now Ramaphosa’s first real test to see if he can navigate a course for an earlier exit for Zuma with as limited a fallout as possible for the ANC.’’
The ANC will study the judgment and discuss its implications when its National Executive Committee meets on Jan. 10, it said in an emailed statement.
The Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) welcomes the Constitutional Court judgement based on the case brought for a declaratory order to force Parliament to hold the president of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, to account.
The Court found that although some action (Vote of no confidence) was taken by the National Assembly, the necessary processes to hold the President to account was flawed.
“Concourt ordered the National Assembly to remedy the situation through introducing new rules,” said Ben Theron, Chief Operating Officer at OUTA. “It appears that parliament will have to launch an investigation to establish the facts before bringing the matter before the House for debate and decision.”
OUTA said that once again, the Courts have been called to force elected officials to do their duty. “We can only hope that this judgement will be implemented very soon,” Theron added.
OUTA compiled a case to expose the reality and extent of Zuma’s conduct and connection to state capture and submitted it to each member of parliament to ensure everyone is informed to hold him to account.
Cyril Ramaphosa: The Audio Biography
Listen to the story of Cyril Ramaphosa's rise to presidential power, narrated by our very own Alec Hogg.