Court rules South African president Jacob Zuma can face corruption charges
A South African court has dealt a legal blow to President Jacob Zuma, opening the way to the reinstatement of 783 charges of corruption and fraud against him.
The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld a lower court's ruling that a 2009 decision by state prosecutors to drop the charges against Zuma was irrational.
The president, who has faced calls for his resignation because of a series of scandals, and the National Prosecuting Authority had appealed against the lower court's ruling.
The hundreds of corruption charges against Mr Zuma were initially instituted in 2005 before he became president and after former business partner Shabir Shaik was convicted of fraud and corruption, according to the appeals court.
They are partly linked to alleged bribes that Mr Zuma received in connection with a South African arms deal while he was deputy president.
The allegations against Mr Zuma have hurt the popularity of the ruling African National Congress party, the main anti-apartheid movement that has led since the end of white minority rule in 1994.
Some former loyalists in the ruling party have called for Mr Zuma's ousting as a way to restore confidence in the ANC.
The president's second five-year term is set to run until elections in 2019.
"The ANC has full confidence in our judiciary and the options it offers to all aggrieved parties," the party said after the announcement by the appeals court.
It said it will study the judgment and await "further decisions from the affected parties" before commenting further.
While Mr Zuma retains the backing of some powerful factions in his party, many South Africans are angry over his association with the Guptas, a family of Indian immigrant businessmen accused of looting state funds and influencing top government appointments for their own benefit.
Mr Zuma and the Guptas have denied wrongdoing.
In another scandal, Mr Zuma was forced to reimburse some state money after the Constitutional Court ruled against him last year in a dispute over millions of dollars spent on his private home.