ConCourt to rule on Nkandla saga today

The ConCourt will rule on the application brought by the EFF, DA & Public Protector.

FILE. An EFF member looks through a barbed wire fence while others hold up placards at the Constitutional Court during the Nkandla showdown on 09 February 2016. Picture: Reinart Toerien/EWN.

JOHANNESBURG - President Jacob Zuma, the African National Congress (ANC) and opposition parties will this morning find out whether the president was wrong to refuse to pay for the upgrades to his Nkandla home and whether the Public Protector was right to order him to cover some of the cost.

Constitutional Court judges will rule on the application brought by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), the Democratic Alliance (DA) and Public Protector Thuli Madonsela that Zuma pay for the benefits he and his family received through government's spending on his home.

After previously saying he did not benefit from the upgrades, Zuma's lawyers finally told the court he would be happy to pay some of the money back.

The Nkandla scandal has come to dominate discussions around the president and placed the ruling party under pressure during the last elections.

WATCH: Malema: This is the beginning of the end for Zuma

Several high profile leaders and ministers have claimed Zuma did nothing wrong while Police Minister Nkosinathi Nhleko's report claimed the president did not have to pay for the fire pool, cattle culvert and chicken run installed by government.

Zuma then turned around and conceded that he had benefited from government's spending on his home and that that report was irrelevant.

Today's ruling could find that Zuma was wrong to behave in the way he has.

But opposition parties will be looking for any finding that could be used as a basis to try and impeach him in Parliament.

EFF leader Julius Malema says he hopes the ANC will make the right decision after today's ruling.

Malema says the ANC can no longer afford to support Zuma after he broke his oath.

"We hope that after court, the ANC will have to come to its proper senses. Because you cannot say a president has broken an oath of office and then say this man should continue to be the president of the country."