Editor's note: The Constitutional Court has ajourned and judgment is reserved. The court will inform the public when it is ready to make a judgment. Watch the recording from the day's proceedings in the gallery above.
You can also watch the EFF's march to the Constitutional Court here.
JOHANNESBURG - In August last year, the Constitutional Court set down the case involving the President's expansive KwaZulu-Natal homestead for a hearing on February 9, 2016.
The case comes after the Economic Freedom Fighters spent months demanding that President Jacob Zuma repay money spent on non-security upgrades at his Nkandla home. Despite a recommendation from Public Protector Thuli Madonsela that Police Minister Nathi Nhleko provide Zuma with a repayment amount, the president has not been asked by the ruling party in parliament to pay a cent.
"Section 96 (of the Constitution) imposes a high standard of conduct on the President. The President must avoid putting himself in a position where a risk of conflict may arise."
"It is significant that the section does not require the existence of actual conflict of interest. If the president puts himself in a situation of a conflict of interest, he has acted in breach of the Constitution," Shivambu says in his affidavit.
Shivambu argues that Madonsela's report is clear that Zuma tacitly accepted "undue benefits” in the way of a swimming pool, amphitheatre, kraal and chicken run, he is constitutionally bound to repay a portion of the R240 million spent on security upgrades at his home.
"The President has violated the Constitution, which he is duty bound to uphold. In failing to give effect to the findings of the Public Protector, the President has committed a serious constitutional breach," says Shivambu.
He argues further that Zuma has failed to promote the independence of the Public Protector.
"By failing to give effect to the findings of the Public Protector and at the same time not challenging such findings in court, the President has undermined the independence and effectiveness of the Public Protector."
Last week Zuma proposed in a letter sent to the registrar of the court that it order the finance minister and auditor-general to determine an amount he should pay back for Nkandla.
This would be to 'achieve an end to the drawn-out dispute in a manner that meets the public protector’s recommendations and is beyond political reproach, the president proposes that the determination of the amount he is to pay should be independently and impartially determined,” the presidency said.
The EFF rejected the president's proposal and said it is not about the amount nor the money but the authority of the Office of the Public Protector.
Follow Dianne Hawker's tweets below: