Court Orders South African President to Pay Back Government for Controversial Home Remodeling

South African President Jacob Zuma will have to pay back some of the $16 million in state funds that he used to remodel his private home, with a court ruling issued on Thuesday resolving the years-long controversy around alleged security upgrades that included a new pool and an amphitheater.

The constitutional court handed down the decision, with Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng saying Zuma failed to uphold the constitution when he ignored previous orders from South Africa's anti-corruption watchdog, Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, to pay back some of the expense for his Nkandla compound.

"The Public Protector would arguably have no dignity and be ineffective if her directives could be ignored willy-nilly," Mogoeng said. "Only upon [the president] has the constitutional obligation to uphold, defend, and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic been expressly imposed."

How much the 73-year-old head of state will be ordered to pay will be determined by the Treasury Ministry in the next two months. The initial investigation by the public prosecutor did not provide specific cost estimates.

Zuma has been mired in controversy in recent months after questionably removing South Africa's finance minister from office, but the Nkandla compound scandal has dogged the politician for years. Renovations on the estate began in 2009, just months after he was first sworn into office, under the claim that they were needed for security.

In addition to the much-talked about swimming pool, the "security upgrades" also included a pen for cattle, a chicken run, and a visitors' center. The number of houses on the property, located about 15 miles south of Nkandla town, doubled between 2000 and 2010 and more have been added since then. The construction costs eventually totaled 250 million rand — valued at $16 million in today's currency rates — all paid for out of government coffers.

As public protector, Madonsela opened an investigation into the controversy in 2012 after reports were filed to her office. The findings published in 2014 said Zuma "benefitted unduly from the enormous capital investment in the non-security installations at his private residence." She also noted previous Presidents Thabo Mbeki and Nelson Mandela spent $1.1 million and $2.9 million respectively on their private homes. The report determined the president should pay back the cost for renovations that did not qualify as security upgrades.

Madonsela specified five areas of renovation that didn't meet the security upgrade claims. In response to critics, Zuma claimed the swimming pool was actually built as a "fire pool" — to help in the event that a fire needed to be extinguished. Zuma initially rebuffed Madonsela's report and the public protector has been heavily criticized by the president's fellow African National Congress party members.

The case heard by the Constitutional Court was brought by the opposition parties Economic Freedom Fighters and Democratic Alliance (DA), as well as Madonsela. The focal point of the trial was whether Zuma was obligated by the public protector report and the recommendations Madonsela made.

Chief Justice Mogoeng described the Public Protector as a "true crusader" against corruption and poor governance, while comparing the office to the "embodiment of a biblical David" in its fight against the powerful. Speaking after the ruling, Madonsela said that the ruling had confirmed her office's role, the Mail & Guardian reported.

"My job was to protect the public from improper conduct by firstly determining if somebody's conduct was improper and secondly determining how should it be fixed," Madonsela said. "I did so and now the Constitutional Court has confirmed that I did my job."

Following the verdict, the South African government put out a statement on Zuma's behalf saying he respected the decision. Earlier this year the president said he would pay back some of the money, although he did not provide an amount.

"President Jacob Zuma has noted and respects the judgement handed down by the Constitutional Court," the statement said, according to the BBC. "The president will reflect on the judgement and its implications on the state and government, and will in consultation with other impacted institutions of state determine the appropriate action."

Both the Democratic Alliance and EFF issued statements on Thursday welcoming the Constitutional Court's ruling. Speaking at a press conference Democratic Alliance leader Mmusi Maimane said Zuma's actions were impeachment-worthy offenses, with the party saying it was moving to have the leader removed. Meanwhlie, EFF's head Julius Malema urged the president to leave office, saying his party would pursue other measures to remove Zuma from office in the event that he refused to do so.

So far, however, it appears as though Zuma's ruling ANC party will not make any moves towards impeachment. The party's General Secretary Gwede Mantashe claimed to not hold any power in the way of holding a vote of no-confidence against the president.

Reuters contributed to this report.