Jacob Zuma

=== Nkandla homestead ===
{{Main|Nkandla (homestead)}}{{Further|Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly}}[[File:President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla homestead.jpg|thumb|Zuma's [[Nkandla homestead]] in [[KwaZulu-Natal]]]]Zuma began his second term amid ongoing controversy over what were officially security upgrades made with state funds to his [[Nkandla homestead|private homestead]] at Nkandla. Public Protector [[Thuli Madonsela]] investigated, and in late November 2013 her draft report was leaked to the ''Mail & Guardian.''<ref name="mail2">{{cite web|date=29 November 2013|title=Nkandla report: Payback time, Zuma|url=http://mg.co.za/article/2013-11-28-payback-time-mr-president|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131213180406/http://mg.co.za/article/2013-11-28-payback-time-mr-president|archive-date=13 December 2013|website=[[Mail & Guardian]]}}</ref> Similar to the final version of the report, titled "Secure in Comfort" and released on 19 March 2014,<ref>{{cite web |last=Ackroyd |first=Bianca |date=19 March 2014 |title=Damning Nkandla report finds Zuma must pay for upgrades |url=https://www.enca.com/south-africa/damning-nkandla-report-finds-zuma-must-pay-upgrades |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160325184419/https://www.enca.com/south-africa/damning-nkandla-report-finds-zuma-must-pay-upgrades |archive-date=25 March 2016 |website=eNCA}}</ref> the draft found that some of the Nkandla upgrades exceeded Zuma's security needs and recommended that Zuma should repay the state.<ref name="mail2"/> The opposition, Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), and DA applied for legal recourse to compel Zuma to follow the recommendations in Madonsela's report, and the [[Constitutional Court of South Africa|Constitutional Court]] found in their favour on 31 March 2016. In ''[[Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly|EFF v Speaker; DA v Speaker]]'', the full court agreed that Madonsela's report was binding, meaning Zuma was required to repay the state for some of the Nkandla upgrades and that Zuma had failed to uphold the country's Constitution.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Thamm|first1=Marianne|date=31 March 2016|title=Nkandla ConCourt ruling: President Zuma and National Assembly in breach of Constitution|work=Daily Maverick|url=http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-03-31-nkandla-concourt-ruling-president-zuma-and-national-assembly-in-breach-of-constitution/#.Vvz5raT5jIW|url-status=live|access-date=31 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160402022728/http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-03-31-nkandla-concourt-ruling-president-zuma-and-national-assembly-in-breach-of-constitution/#.Vvz5raT5jIW|archive-date=2 April 2016}}</ref> In a public address on 1 April, Zuma welcomed the judgment and apologised to the country,<ref>{{Cite web|date=2016-04-01|title=Zuma responds to ConCourt ruling|url=https://www.news24.com/News24/full-text-zuma-responds-to-concourt-ruling-20160401|access-date=2022-01-13|website=News24|language=en-US}}</ref> though legal academic [[Pierre de Vos]] said that the statement seriously misconstrued the judgment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=De Vos|first=Pierre|date=2016-04-03|title=Truth shall set you free, Mr Zuma|url=https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2016-04-03-truth-shall-set-you-free-mr-zuma/|access-date=2022-01-13|website=Daily Maverick|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2016-04-05|title=Zuma breached oath of office – De Vos|url=https://www.news24.com/News24/zuma-breached-oath-of-office-de-vos-20160405|access-date=2022-01-13|website=News24|language=en-US}}</ref>

The court's finding that Zuma had failed to uphold the Constitution subsequently provided the basis of an [[Impeachment in South Africa|impeachment]] motion in Parliament, which was sponsored by the DA and defeated by a significant margin.<ref name="BBC News-2016">{{Cite web|date=2016-04-05|title=South Africa's Jacob Zuma survives Nkandla impeachment vote|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-35966916|access-date=2022-01-13|website=BBC News}}</ref> However, Zuma faced serious backlash in the aftermath of the Constitutional Court ruling,<ref name="Friedman-2016">{{Cite web|last=Friedman|first=Steven|date=2016-04-06|title=Courts have done their bit, now it's up to politics|url=http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2016/04/06/courts-have-done-their-bit-now-it-s-up-to-politics|access-date=2022-01-13|website=Business Day}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Matshiqi|first=Aubrey|date=2016-04-05|title=Internal ANC politics will dictate leader's fate|url=http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2016/04/05/internal-anc-politics-will-dictate-leaders-fate|access-date=2022-01-13|website=Business Day}}</ref> including criticism from the SACP,<ref>{{Cite web|last=Magome|first=Mogomotsi|date=2016-04-03|title=SACP not satisfied with Zuma's apology|url=http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/sacp-not-satisfied-with-zumas-apology-2004341|access-date=10 April 2016|website=[[Independent Online (South Africa)|IOL]]}}</ref> civil society,<ref>{{Cite web|last=Thakali|first=Thabiso|date=9 April 2016|title=Go, clerics urge Zuma|url=http://capeargus.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/showarticle.aspx?article=cc32a487-8cec-4f4c-b6db-6aaeee59a99e&key=NmQEgJZ3jfsEr3bTv4dW1w%253d%253d&issue=69852016040900000000001001|access-date=2022-01-13|website=Weekend Argus}}</ref><ref name="Poplak-2016">{{Cite web|last=Poplak|first=Richard|date=2016-04-06|title=Trainspotter: #ZumaMustFall Take Two, this time for real|url=https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-04-07-trainspotter-zumamustfall-take-two-this-time-for-real/|access-date=2022-01-13|website=Daily Maverick|language=en}}</ref> several ANC stalwarts (including [[Ahmed Kathrada]], [[Ronnie Kasrils]], [[Trevor Manuel]], and [[Cheryl Carolus]]),<ref>{{Cite web|date=2016-04-02|title=#AhmedKathrada: What he said in letter to Zuma|url=https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/ahmedkathrada-what-he-said-in-letter-to-zuma-2004231|access-date=2022-01-13|website=[[Independent Online (South Africa)|IOL]]|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Grootes|first=Stephen|date=2016-04-05|title=Post ConCourt Nkandla ruling bombshell: Trevor Manuel joins the calls for Zuma's resignation|url=https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-04-05-post-concourt-nkandla-ruling-bombshell-trevor-manuel-joins-the-calls-for-zumas-resignation/|access-date=2022-01-13|website=Daily Maverick|language=en}}</ref><ref name="Poplak-2016" /> and several active factions of the ANC.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hunter|first=Qaanitah|date=12 April 2016|title=ANC Gauteng has resolved that Zuma must resign|url=http://www.rdm.co.za/politics/2016/04/12/anc-gauteng-has-resolved-that-zuma-must-resign|access-date=12 April 2016|website=Rand Daily Mail}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Letsoalo|first=Matuma|date=2016-04-12|title=Gauteng ANC: Zuma must step down|url=http://mg.co.za/article/2016-04-12-gauteng-anc-zumas-apology-is-not-enough/|access-date=12 April 2016|website=[[Mail & Guardian]]}}</ref><ref name="Magome-2016">{{Cite web |last=Magome |first=Mogomotsi |date=10 April 2016 |title=Zuma's faithful hit back |url=http://sundaytribune.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/showarticle.aspx?article=f71c1794-3a18-4654-93fa-75e88560677d&key=BaGJCMkBU3%252bKnFXU8IFdAw%253d%253d&issue=70532016041000000000001001 |access-date=11 April 2016 |website=Sunday Tribune}}</ref><ref name="Business Day-2016">{{Cite web|date=2016-04-12|title=Zuma like PW Botha, says ANC veteran|url=http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/2016/04/12/zuma-like-pw-botha-says-anc-veteran|access-date=12 April 2016|website=Business Day}}</ref> Before the ruling, Zuma had faced and defeated five [[Motion of no confidence|motions of no confidence]] in Parliament, three of which went to a vote.<ref name="Wilkinson-2017">{{Cite web |last=Wilkinson |first=Kate |date=2017-06-29 |title=How many motions of no confidence has Zuma faced? |url=https://ewn.co.za/2017/06/29/fact-sheet-how-many-motions-of-no-confidence-has-zuma-faced |access-date=2022-01-14 |website=EWN |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Tolsi |first=Niren |date=2013-08-27 |title=Concourt dismisses DA appeal to force Zuma 'no confidence' debate |url=https://mg.co.za/article/2013-08-27-concourt-dismisses-appeal-to-force-zuma-no-confidence-debate/ |access-date=2022-01-14 |website=[[Mail & Guardian]] |language=en-ZA}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2015-03-03 |title=Agang SA withdraws motion of no confidence in President Zuma |url=https://www.news24.com/drum/News/agang-sa-withdraws-motion-of-no-confidence-in-president-zuma-20170728 |access-date=2022-01-14 |website=Drum |language=en-US}}</ref> Following the ruling and failed impeachment motion, he faced three more in November 2016,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Nicolson |first=Greg |date=2016-11-10 |title=No confidence: ANC wins the vote, but Zuma suffers in battle |url=https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-11-10-no-confidence-anc-wins-the-vote-but-zuma-suffers-in-battle/ |access-date=2022-01-14 |website=Daily Maverick |language=en}}</ref> August 2017,<ref name="Allison-2017">{{Cite web |last=Allison |first=Simon |date=2017-08-09 |title=Jacob Zuma narrowly survives no-confidence vote in South African parliament |url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/08/jacob-zuma-survives-no-confidence-vote-south-african-president |access-date=2022-01-14 |website=The Guardian |language=en}}</ref> and February 2018.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Winning |first=Alexander |date=2018-02-02 |title=South Africa's Zuma faces new no-confidence vote this month |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-safrica-politics-idUSKBN1FM1B5 |access-date=2022-01-14}}</ref>