Now that the ruling party's top seat is no longer his, but Cyril Ramaphosa's, Zuma may not have the same protection he once had.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the National Assembly failed to hold President Jacob Zuma accountable after the nkandla ruling.
Zuma, an earthy politician with scant formal education who spent a decade in prison with Nelson Mandela for fighting apartheid, has faced numerous corruption allegations throughout his presidency.
The South African Federation of Trade Unions (Saftu) has welcomed the Constitutional Court judgment which found that the National Assembly did not hold President Jacob Zuma to account in its handling of the Nkandla matter.
"Concourt ordered the National Assembly to remedy the situation through introducing new rules", said Ben Theron, Chief Operating Officer at OUTA.
Jaftha opened the court session by explaining that four judgments were individually prepared with two each holding a different view.
OUTA compiled a case to expose the reality and extent of Zuma's conduct and connection to state capture and submitted it to each member of parliament to ensure everyone is informed to hold him to account.
He has also been politically hobbled by a dismal economy that was hit by damaging ratings downgrades earlier this year after he sacked a respected finance minister.
"The ANC will study the judgement and discuss its full implications when the National Executive Committee meets on January 10, 2018", she said.
The governing African National Congress tried to use its majority in Parliament to shield Zuma from liability, but the Constitutional Court ruled a year ago that he'd violated his oath of office by failing to comply with Madonsela's directive and ordered the Treasury to determine how much he owed.
The court ruling was by majority.
Zuma had failed to abide by recommendations made by the country's anti-corruption watchdog in 2014 over refurbishments at his personal home in the eastern KwaZulu-Natal province that misused US$15 million of taxpayers' money.
"The assembly simply debated and voted on the motion".
This is why the court ordered parliament to start a process such as hearing or investigation under Section 89 to determine if the President should be removed for violating the Constitution or for serious misconduct within 180 days.
