South African president suffers another legal setback

Outgoing President of the African National Congress (ANC), Jacob Zuma, listens as his successor, Cyril Ramaphosa, addresses delegates during the closing of the ANC's elective conference in Johannesburg, on Wednesday Dec. 20, 2017. (AP)

JOHANNESBURG: South Africa’s top court on Friday ruled that Parliament failed to hold President Jacob Zuma to account in a scandal over multi-million-dollar upgrades to his private home, in a decision that fueled opposition calls for the president to be impeached.
The Constitutional Court’s ruling followed its conclusion last year that Zuma violated the constitution when he benefited inappropriately from state funding for his Nkandla home. It was one of a series of presidential scandals that have tarnished the reputation of the ruling African National Congress (ANC), the main anti-apartheid movement that has led South Africa since the first all-race elections in 1994.
Zuma has survived opposition efforts to oust him in votes of no confidence in Parliament, where the ANC party has a majority. Frustrated by setbacks in the National Assembly, the opposition went to court as part of their campaign to impeach Zuma, who has lost support among ruling party loyalists.
Zuma was replaced as party leader this month by Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa, a critic of the corruption that has undermined South Africa’s economy.
“We conclude that the assembly did not hold the president to account,” said Chris Jafta, a Constitutional Court judge who read out the ruling.
He called for Parliament to institute rules that would provide for a president’s removal. Parliament said in a statement that it would comply with the instruction.
The Democratic Alliance, South Africa’s main opposition party, said its motion to impeach Zuma should be debated in Parliament “as soon as reasonably possible.”
The court ruling cited a constitutional provision that says Parliament “may remove” a president from office by a two-thirds majority for a “serious violation” of the law, as well as a separate requirement that constitutional obligations must be “performed diligently and without delay.”
Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng disagreed with the majority ruling, describing it as judicial overreach.
The ruling party said it will study the ruling and discuss it at a high-level meeting on Jan. 10.