Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others; Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others [2016] ZACC 11 is an important judgment of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which finds that President Jacob Zuma breached the South African Constitution by failing to implement the recommendations in the Public Protector's Nkandla report.

On 19 March 2014, she released her so-called Nkandla report, which found that some of the upgrades were unlawful and recommended that President Zuma pay back the money used for them.

[7] Zuma's evasiveness led to severe and widespread criticism, including by opposition parties the Economic Freedom Fighters and Democratic Alliance.

[10][11][12] On one such occasion, at Zuma's 2015 State of the Nation address, these interruptions led to brawl between MPs and security personnel and a subsequent court action (which was decided against the government).

[20]As anticipated, the ANC-controlled National Assembly constituted an ad hoc committee to conduct a parallel investigative process led by Minister of Police Nathi Nhleko, whose report, released in August 2015, purported to "exonerate" Zuma.

On 8 October 2015 the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa handed down a judgment in a separate matter (namely SABC v DA, about the Hlaudi Motsoeneng saga) that found the Public Protector's reports are legally binding.

[24] A week before the hearing, the Presidency made a surprise attempt to settle the matter and compiled a draft order offering to pay back some of the money.

[27] The EFF made a counter-offer in the form of a draft order stating that the Nkandla report was legally binding on Zuma and that by failing to implement it he had breached the South African Constitution and his oath of office.

[29] Only Speaker Baleka Mbete's counsel, Lindi Nkosi-Thomas SC, seriously disputed the EFF and DA's account of the facts and law, but was ultimately forced to capitulate and was widely mocked for her "bumbling" performance.

The predicament though is that mere allegations and investigation of improper or corrupt conduct against all, especially powerful public office-bearers, are generally bound to attract a very unfriendly response.

An unfavourable finding of unethical or corrupt conduct coupled with remedial action, will probably be strongly resisted in an attempt to repair or soften the inescapable reputational damage.

He was duty-bound to, but did not, assist and protect the Public Protector so as to ensure her independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness by complying with her remedial action.

But that does not detract from the illegality of his conduct regard being had to its inconsistency with his constitutional obligations in terms of sections 182(1)(c) and 181(3) read with 83(b).Mogoeng also found that the National Assembly had acted unlawfully by failing to implement the report: On a proper construction of its constitutional obligations, the National Assembly was duty-bound to hold the President accountable by facilitating and ensuring compliance with the decision of the Public Protector.

Second-guessing the findings and remedial action does not lie in the mere fact of the exculpatory reports of the Minister of Police and the last Ad Hoc Committee.

[34][35][36][37][38][39][40] One commentator said Mogoeng's judgment was "his moment of triumph and redemption", and marked his transformation from a supposed "tool" of the establishment to a "national hero" in a manner reminiscent of Earl Warren.

In a press statement the following evening, he said he welcomed the judgment and had always accepted the Public Protector's reports were binding, and noted that the Court found he had been entitled to institute a parallel investigative process and had acted "honestly" and "in good faith".

[57][58] Secretary-General Gwede Mantashe, speaking on behalf of the so-called Top Six, said he "welcomed" Zuma's apologetic statement but that calls for his impeachment were "over-exaggerated".

[63][64] The Congress of the People, an opposition party, said it would boycott parliamentary proceedings in light of the National Assembly's failure to implement the Court's judgment.

[82] On 12 April 2016, Max du Preez said the key question, "now that the balance of power has turned irrevocably against Zuma", was how to ensure he makes a managed — and non-violent — exit.