After Zuma became president, his private homestead at Nkandla in rural KwaZulu-Natal was substantially upgraded by the state. In November 2013 opposition parties accused Zuma of having used taxpayer funds not only for security improvements, but also private additions and improvements to his home. Zuma answered in parliament that he was unaware of the scale of the work, but agreed to two investigations, one to probe its rising costs, and another to determine any breaches of parliamentary spending rules. The Public Protector's report "Secure in Comfort" found that Zuma and his family had benefited improperly from the upgrades, that a swimming pool (claimed to be a "fire pool"), amphitheatre, cattle kraal and chicken run were not security features, and that Zuma had violated the executive ethics code and had not asked "questions regarding the scale, cost and affordability of the Nkandla project." After rival reports by the police's Special Investigative Unit and a parliamentary ad hoc committee attempted to exonerate Zuma, opposition parties went to the Constitutional Court to establish whether the Public Protector's report was binding. Shortly before the Constitutional Court hearing in February 2016, Zuma's attorneys recognised that the Public Protector's findings were binding and said that Zuma was ready to pay back part of the cost of the upgrade. On 31 March 2016, the Constitutional Court delivered a unanimous judgement in "Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others" stating that the Public Protector's report was binding and that Zuma and the National Assembly had failed to uphold the country's constitution. The court ordered National Treasury to determine the amount that Zuma must pay back and ordered Zuma to do so within 45 days of the court's approval of the National Treasury report.