[JURIST] South African President Jacob Zuma [BBC profile] on Tuesday survived a vote to impeach him after the African National Congress (ANC) [official website] gave him their support. The move to impeach Zuma came from opposition leaders after the constitutional court ruled that he had ignored their order [JURIST report] to personally repay the amounts determined by the National Treasury, as they relate to the “non-security” upgrades to his private residence. However, his future as president is still in question [Guardian report] as many influential figures have maintained their requests for him to resign over other questionable matters. The issue with his residence improvements came to light when several South Africans, including a Member of Parliament, complained to the Public Protector “concerning aspects of the security upgrades” made to the private residence triggering a fairly extensive investigation by the Protector into the Nkandla project. After not paying and the matter of impeachment going to parliament, the ANC decided to back Zuma and used their control of two-thirds of parliament to win the vote against impeachment.
This is not the first time that Zuma has faced controversy in South Africa politics. Zuma was ousted [JURIST report] as the country’s deputy president in 2005 after an aide was convicted of corruption. He was also charged with rape, but he was ultimately acquitted and reinstated [JURIST report] as African National Congress deputy vice president. In July 2008 the South African Constitutional Court rejected a motion [JURIST report] by Zuma to exclude evidence from the corruption trial. Zuma had argued [JURIST report] that evidence seized in 2005 raids by the Directorate of Special Investigations should be thrown out because the raids violated his rights to privacy and a fair trial. The court upheld the warrants used in the raids, confirming a November 2007 decision [JURIST report] by the Supreme Court of Appeal. He was first charged with corruption in 2005, but those charges were later dismissed [JURIST report] because prosecutors failed to follow proper procedures.