South Africa President Jacob Zuma’s fate on Nkandla will be sealed by the Constitutional Court tomorrow, and it could have serious legal and political implications for him.
Some opposition parties had earlier indicated they would move for the ousting or resignation of Zuma if the Constitutional Court rules that he should pay back a portion of the Nkandla money.
This motion has been in the offing for some time, but the Constitutional Court judgment would confirm the powers of the public protector.
Zuma has in the past refused to pay back some of the money spent on his Nkandla homestead in KwaZulu Natal, forcing the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and Democratic Alliance (DA) to drag him to the Constitutional Court.
The highest court in the land confirmed on Tuesday that judgment on Nkandla will be handed down tomorrow.
This comes at a time when Zuma is embroiled in the scandal involving the Gupta family.
Public Protector Thuli Madonsela had earlier found that Zuma must pay back part of the R246 million used to upgrade his house.
And Madonsela has once again been called on by the opposition to investigate the Gupta family for influencing Zuma on the appointment of cabinet members.
Deputy Minister of Finance Jonas Mcebisi broke ranks two weeks ago and publicly confirmed that the Gupta family had offered him the position of his then boss, Nhlanhla Nene, in December last year.
Since then, others, such as former MP Vytjie Mentor and the former head of the Government Communication and Information System, Themba Maseko, have fingered the Gupta family in the appointment of top officials in return for favours.
The Gupta family, however, have strenuously denied the allegations.
The ANC decided at its last national executive committee meeting that any of its members who had been influenced by the Gupta family or any of its business interests should report their cases to ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe.
But the opposition wants Madonsela and the Hawks to investigate the Gupta family.
In the hearing in January, Zuma’s counsel admitted in the Constitutional Court that the findings of the public protector were binding.
This has been a bone of contention in Parliament over the last two years, following the release of the public protector’s report on Nkandla.
Three other separate investigations were conducted by Parliament, including the joint standing committee on intelligence, the ad hoc committee on Nkandla and the ministerial task team.
All these findings cleared Zuma of any wrongdoing.
Several officials from the Department of Public Works are facing disciplinary action, and Zuma’s architect, Minenhle Makhanya, faces a lawsuit of R155 million.
Zuma’s admission in January that he should pay back a portion of the money incensed opposition parties, who said he had been trying to avoid the inevitable for months.
Both the DA and EFF said Zuma knew very well that he was liable for private spending at his house.
The Constitutional Court judgment could decide on the amount Zuma must pay and the period he has to do so.