R28.9 Million and a Nation Watching: Inside Zuma’s Battle to Avoid Paying His Legal Bill

For years, Jacob Zuma’s legal costs have been a slow-burning political fire one that resurfaces every time the former president steps into a courtroom. On Monday, the flames rose again when the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria was asked to reconsider whether Zuma should personally repay the R28.9 million the State spent on his private legal battles.

But this time, the central question wasn’t about guilt, corruption, or political accountability.
It was far more technical and far more provocative:

If Zuma never personally authorised the State to pay for his lawyers, can he be forced to refund the money?

That was the argument advanced by his advocate, Thabani Masuku, who insisted that Zuma had been unfairly singled out as the one who must cough up the cash.

“Zuma wasn’t the wrongdoer”, Masuku pushes back

Standing before Judge Anthony Millar, Masuku argued that both the full bench and the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had only ever declared the payments irregular. They never explicitly said Zuma acted unlawfully or should be financially liable.

According to him, Judge Millar went further than those courts when he ordered Zuma to personally repay the entire sum plus interest.

Masuku’s argument rested on a simple idea:

• It was the State Attorney and the President who approved Zuma’s funding.

• Those decisions were later overturned.

• Therefore, the “wrongdoers,” he said, were State officials, not Zuma.

“Why should he be punished for a decision he didn’t make?” Masuku argued.
He even suggested Zuma had become an “easy target”, while officials who authorised the irregular payments escaped scrutiny.

His message was clear:
If the State messed up, the State should pay.

Judge Millar pushes back: “But wasn’t he the beneficiary?”

Judge Millar didn’t let the argument slide.
He pressed Masuku: if Zuma enjoyed the benefit of public funds, whether he asked for them or not, should he not take responsibility?

Masuku doubled down, insisting that Zuma shouldn’t be liable for a decision made by others. He emphasised that the State, as custodian of public money, should have known better.

The State responds: “The courts have already spoken.”

Representing the President and the State Departments, advocate George Avakoumides dismissed Masuku’s claims as revisionist.

He argued that the earlier courts were clear:
The money must be paid back and Zuma is the one who must do so.

“It is clear that it is he who has to pay the money back,” Avakoumides said, urging Judge Millar not to revisit issues that had already been tested in the full court and SCA.

He accused Zuma’s team of trying to relitigate settled questions under the guise of seeking leave to appeal.

Interest, deadlines and the threat of asset seizure

Masuku also objected to another sting in Judge Millar’s earlier ruling:
a requirement that Zuma pay interest on the R28.9 million something he argued was only asked for by the Democratic Alliance, and shouldn’t have been granted.

Under the current order (now suspended pending appeal):

• Zuma must pay R28.9 million plus interest at the prescribed rate

• He has 60 days to do so

• If he fails, the State Attorney may attach his assets

But with Monday’s proceedings, all of that is temporarily on ice. Judge Millar has reserved judgment on whether to allow the appeal, either to a full bench or to the SCA.

Public reaction: “Only in SA can R28 million be a paperwork debate”

South Africans, fatigued by decades of Zuma-related litigation, weighed in online with a mix of frustration, cynicism and dark humour:

“Imagine arguing that you didn’t ask for free legal fees, you just accepted them.”
– X (Twitter) user

“State officials authorised it… but who benefited? Let’s not pretend we’re confused.”
– Legal podcast commentator

“R28.9 million is a dream home, five cars and a lobola for the whole family. Pay it back.”
– Facebook reaction

Many pointed to the long history of State-funded legal support for Zuma a saga that began during his years as deputy president and continued through countless court appearances tied to corruption allegations. For the public, the question is less about technical liability and more about principle: should taxpayers continue footing the bill?

A familiar legal battlefield

This case is yet another chapter in South Africa’s long legal tug-of-war with its former president. It raises uncomfortable questions about accountability, the opaque nature of State legal funding, and the slow pace at which irregular expenditure is addressed.

Regardless of the outcome, one thing is certain:
Zuma’s legal fees are far from settled, financially, legally, or politically.

And once again, the country waits for a judgment that could shape yet another round of appeals, challenges, and political theatre.

{Source: IOL}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com