JUDGMENT was reserved in the EFF and DA's application to the Constitutional Court for an order that President Jacob Zuma pay back some of the R246m spent on his home in Nklandla.
This means Zuma and Speaker Baleka Mbete might have to put up with more heckling during the State of the National Address on Thursday after some startling revelations were submitted in the stand-off with two opposition parties in the court in Joburg today.
The EFF and DA, fed up with Zuma not paying back any of the money, as recommended by the public protector, took Zuma and Mbete to court.
They had applied for an order clarifying the powers of the public protector, and that Zuma be ordered to pay some of the money back that was spent on non-security items - like the so-called "fire pool", and a cattle kraal.
Last year, Zuma laughed in Parliament about what he regarded as a fixation with Nkandla, but in an about-turn he made an offer days ago through his lawyers in the hopes of settling the matter.
He has proposed that the Auditor General and National Treasury figure out how much of the R246 million spent on non-security upgrades he should pay back.
But Public Protector Thuli Madonsela said that only she could decide whether to change her conclusions, and until that is done, Zuma had to follow what she ordered.
Madonsela was among those present in court as EFF lawyer Wim Trengove said: "This could not be a more flagrant violation of his duty as president to protect the Constitution."
The Constitution says a president must "uphold, defend and respect the Constitution".
He is also required to assist and support the public protector.
"He defied the public protector as president of the country in order to protect his ill gotten gains," said Trengrove.
He said the National Assembly also violated its own constitutional obligations by not holding the president and the Cabinet to account.
The report Police Minister Nathi Nhleko prepared which said Zuma did not owe anything had no standing, he added.
As far as the EFF was concerned, Zuma had done all of this through bad faith or ignorance of the law and it was causing chaos in Parliament.
When it was the turn of Zuma's lawyer, the court heard that the Nkandla saga had "traumatised the nation in many ways". This was behind Zuma’s recent offer to pay back some money said his lawyer, Jeremy Gauntlett.
He blamed the Department of Public Works, and the "ministers involved" for the controversy, rather than Zuma.
He also likened Madonsela to an ombudsman who did a "quick and dirty" assessment of the situation, then wanted somebody else to calculate how much was owed.
William Mokhari's – representing Nhleko – at first appeared to say that Nhleko had been asked by Cabinet to look into the report, and had done so despite knowing that what he was doing was unlawful.
But later, after questioning from the judges, Mokhari said this was not what he meant. He meant that Nhleko was merely following Cabinet's instructions, he explained.
Mzansi now awaits the Constitutional Court’s judgment.
