Authored By: Anakho Pulumani
University of Johannesburg
Full name: National Director of Public Prosecutions v Jacob Zuma
Official citation: ZACC 54; 2017 (1) SA 580 (CC)
Court Name & Bench
Court: Constitutional Court of South Africa
Judges: Mogoeng CJ (Chief Justice), Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Mhlantla J, Nkabinde J, Zondo J, and Van der Westhuizen J
Bench Type: Full Bench (11 judges)
Date of Judgment
Delivered on 31 March 2016
Parties Involved
Applicant: National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), represented by Shaun Abrahams at the time
Respondent: Jacob Zuma, former President of South Africa
Facts of the Case
Jacob Zuma, while serving as President, was involved in a contentious controversy regarding the use of public funds for security upgrades to his private residence in Nkandla, KwaZulu-Natal. The Public Protector’s report found that Zuma unduly benefited from these upgrades, which included non-security features such as a swimming pool and amphitheatre.
Following the report, the Speaker of the National Assembly requested the Constitutional Court to determine whether Zuma violated the Constitution by failing to comply with the
Public Protector’s remedial actions and whether the National Assembly was obliged to act on the report.
Issues Raised
Whether the Public Protector’s remedial actions are binding and enforceable under the Constitution.
Whether President Zuma violated his constitutional oath by failing to comply with those remedial actions.
Whether the National Assembly failed in its duty by not holding Zuma accountable.
The extent of the remedial powers of the Public Protector and the obligations of other state organs.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant (NDPP)
Argued that the Public Protector’s findings and remedial actions are binding and entitled to judicial enforcement.
Asserted that the President’s failure to implement the remedial measures constituted a violation of the constitutional principle of accountability.
Emphasised the role of Parliament in upholding constitutional obligations and the rule of law.
Respondent (Zuma)
Contended that the Public Protector’s report was not binding and that he was not obligated to implement all remedial actions.
Claimed the National Assembly had the discretion not to act on the report.
Questioned the scope of the Public Protector’s powers and the extent of judicial oversight.
Judgment / Final Decision
The Court unanimously held that the Public Protector’s remedial actions are binding and enforceable.
Declared that President Zuma violated the Constitution by failing to comply with the remedial measures.1
Found that the National Assembly failed to uphold its constitutional oversight role by not taking sufficient action.
Ordered Parliament to implement appropriate remedial steps, including ensuring Zuma pays back a reasonable proportion of the costs incurred for upgrades unrelated to security.
The judgment reinforced the principle that no one, including the President, is above the Constitution.2
Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi
The Court stressed that the Public Protector is an independent constitutional entity whose remedial actions are binding unless set aside by a court.3
Emphasised the separation of powers: the Executive must respect constitutional oversight mechanisms.4
Highlighted that the President’s oath to uphold the Constitution entails obedience to constitutional institutions and accountability.
Cited precedent affirming the justiciability of remedial actions by Chapter 9 institutions.
Stressed that Parliamentary oversight is indispensable in holding the Executive accountable,5 underscoring the constitutional democracy’s checks and balances.
Conclusion / Observations
The Nkandla judgment is a landmark ruling that strengthened constitutional accountability and the rule of law in South Africa. It clarified the enforceability of Chapter 9 institutions’ remedial actions and emphasised the President’s duty to respect constitutional mechanisms. This case reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in upholding democracy and accountability at the highest level.
For legal interns, this judgment offers valuable insight into constitutional enforcement, the interplay between organs of state, and the judiciary’s commitment to the supremacy of the Constitution.
Reference(S):
Citation
Case:
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Jacob Zuma ZACC 54; 2017 (1) SA 580 (CC).
Statutes and Reports:
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
Public Protector Act 23 of 1994.
Public Protector, Report on Nkandla (2014).
National Assembly, Report on Nkandla (2015).
Precedent Cases:
Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly ZACC 11.
Secondary Literature:
C Hoexter, Administrative Law in South Africa (2nd edn, Juta 2012) ch 8.
1 National Assembly, Report on Nkandla (2015).
2 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
3 Public Protector Act 23 of 1994 and Public Protector, Report on Nkandla (2014).
4 Hoexter’s Administrative Law in South Africa (2nd edn).
5Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly ZACC 11.
