Not all corrupt blacks are DemocratsFor years, President Jacob G. Zuma of South Africa had derided demands that he repay the state for upgrades to his homestead in Nkandla, about 300 miles southeast of Johannesburg.
The president maintained that the home improvements ‐ including a chicken coop, a cattle enclosure, an amphitheater, a swimming pool, a visitor center and a helipad ‐ were necessary to ensure his safety and that the cost should be borne by taxpayers.
"Nkaaaandla!" Mr. Zuma said in Parliament last year, drawing out the a's in Nkandla to mock opposition lawmakers' pronunciation of the town's name.
On Thursday, South Africa's highest court ruled that Mr. Zuma had violated the Constitution by refusing to pay back some of the millions of dollars in public funds spent on the improvements, saying he flouted laws meant to safeguard the country's young democracy.
Dealing a humiliating rebuke to Mr. Zuma, the Constitutional Court's 11 justices ruled unanimously that the president had "failed to uphold, defend and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the land."
The court ordered Mr. Zuma to reimburse the state for some of the upgrades once the national treasury determined the appropriate amounts. The improvements cost 246 million rand, or about $16.7 million at current exchange rates.
The ruling is significant, experts said, because it checks the conduct of an executive who has been accused of disregarding the nation's democratic institutions. It also affirmed the constitutional authority of the Office of the Public Protector, which has faced unrelenting attacks from Mr. Zuma's party, the African National Congress, since ordering Mr. Zuma to reimburse the state in 2014.