The government has launched a case against Jacob Zuma at the high court in Pretoria
The lawyer for former South African President Jacob Zuma has argued that he bears no responsibility for the “unlawful” state payments toward his legal fees and should not be forced to repay the millions.
Earlier on Thursday, IOL reported that the High Court in Pretoria was set for a high-stakes showdown as the Presidency and the State Attorney seek to recover more than R28 million spent on Zuma’s legal battles.
The application stems from a 2024 Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruling that found Zuma was not entitled to taxpayer-funded legal support and that the state must be reimbursed.
Zuma’s counsel, Advocate Thabani Masuku, told the high court that it is strange that the Presidency and the State Attorney, who previously defended the funding of Zuma’s legal woes vociferously, now turn around and want him to repay the same money.
”When the DA and EFF challenged the decisions of the state (to pay Zuma’s legal fees), there were two options available to the state — to relook at their decisions and to do what is called self-review, to say we have looked at the challenges coming to us, self-review and we think we were wrong. Mr Zuma took refuge in that, to say they are standing in their position.
”Today they are asking Mr Zuma to be saddled with a R28 million on the premise that to do so is to vindicate the rule of law. What law are you vindicating? Mr Zuma is a victim of unconstitutional violence. The defences we have raised are in the context of that debate,” said Masuku.
Masuku argued that the Presidency and the State Attorney are under the wrong impression that the payment obligation flowing from the 2024 SCA ruling places Zuma under a legal duty to reimburse the state. He further submitted that the state “is the perpetrator of this unconstitutional violence”.
”He asked for money. That is okay, once he put it in the system, the system had to act constitutionally. He was not asking for the system to act unconstitutionally. If he had known, the very first time he asked for these costs to be paid, if he had known that this was an unauthorised payment, that would have been a different case,” said Masuku.
He maintained that no conduct by Zuma could have prevented the unconstitutional payments. ”The only people, the only culprits, now speak loudly about the illegality and the rule of law. The very perpetrators today are asking for this payment to be made. Given that it is the state, there has to be a higher bar in assessing its conduct towards a single individual,” he said.
Masuku described the Presidency and State Attorney’s actions as “mean and vicious”, arguing that it was unjust for the state to pursue Zuma for repayment.
”I understand the DA can do that, they have a political gripe against Mr Zuma. But for this state, who function under a constitutional regime, it can’t be just and equitable to say now you have produced a bill. What this bill actually shows, it’s payments made by them which they should not have paid, unauthorised payments,” said Masuku.
”Who has abused state resources? It is the very person before Your Lordship, asking Mr Zuma to pay R28 million. If they had not paid this amount of money, which the court condemned and said they were luxurious payments, if they had paid attention to their duty to guard the purse, Mr Zuma would not find himself in this position.”
Masuku said the Presidency and the State Attorney were acting in an oppressive manner, insisting that the SCA ruling does not direct the two parties — who made the initial payment decision — to recover the money from Zuma.
”Having committed that unconstitutional conduct, to then turn around and say pay, I can choose you, of all the people that are liable … the people that are liable, if you want to apply what the PFMA says about recovery of unauthorised payments, would be the state officials who were responsible for that decision, it would be the Presidency,” said Masuku.
”They could recover this money from a number of people who were beneficiaries, including the attorneys.” He added that the State Attorney and the Presidency must prove Zuma was complicit in the decision to fund his legal fees. Masuku concluded that Zuma was “just an innocent recipient of the money”.
The legal battle to recover over R28.9 million spent on Zuma’s defence in the arms deal corruption case is rooted in a complex web of political, legal, and international factors. The R28.9 million was allocated to cover Zuma’s legal expenses during his defence against charges related to the 1999 arms procurement deal. These funds were used for legal representation and associated costs throughout the protracted legal proceedings.
The state is now seeking to reclaim this amount, along with interest, following a 2024 Supreme Court of Appeal ruling that Zuma was ineligible for taxpayer-funded legal assistance and must reimburse the state. Zuma’s legal team, citing financial constraints, has argued that repayment is not feasible, but the state is ready to enforce the debt, including the potential garnishment of his pension.
