Off the wire
• Palestinian hunger striking journalist at risk of death: lawyer  • FAO upping efforts to curb Zika from spreading worldwide: director general  • Roundup: EU pledges to cooperate closely for Cyprus solution: UN official  • Algeria, Denmark vow to boost economic, counter-terrorism cooperation  • Tanzania to establish wildlife crime unit to curb poaching  • 34 IS militants killed in air strikes, shelling in Iraq  • Norway regards extreme Islamism as greatest threat  • Effects of air pollution on death risk persist over 30 years: study  • Bahrain imposes selective tax on cigarettes as part of austerity measures  • (Recast)LME base metals close lower mostly on Tuesday  
You are here: 　 Home

S. African court reserves judgment over Nkandla case

Xinhua, February 10, 2016 Adjust font size:

The South African Constitutional Court (Concourt) on Tuesday reserved judgment on the Nkandla case involving alleged corruption in relation to President Jacob Zuma.

The case was taken to the highest court in the country by the opposition Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and Democratic Alliance (DA), with support from Public Protector Thuli Madonsela.

The applicants want the Concourt to rule whether the failure to comply with remedial action recommended by Madonsela constituted a breach of constitutional duties by Parliament and the president.

In her report issued in 2014, Madonsela recommended that Zuma pay back part of the money spent on security upgrades at his private home in Nkandla, KwaZulu-Natal Province. The project allegedly abused public funding worth 246 million rand (about 15 million U.S. dollars).

Addressing the media outside the court, EFF leader Julius Malema said they were happy that the court heard the submissions of the EFF and DA and hoped for the court to mete out judgment in their favour.

Malema also stated that he wants the Auditor- General to come up with a reasonable amount to be paid by Zuma within 60 days.

In his submission in court, Zuma's counsel, advocate Jeremy Gauntlett SC said the president wants the matter to rest since the case has traumatized the nation.

Gauntlett admitted that the reccomendation by the Public Protector is binding.

EFF's lawyer William Trengove SC told the court that Zuma violated the Constitution by not paying back the money as stated in the Public Protector's report.

Zuma has argued that it's the police and the Department of Public Works which assessed the security upgrades and did them, without consulting him.

Zuma has offered to pay the money back which was used on non-security developments at his home to be determined by the Auditor General and the Treasury. Endit