DA fights Zuma’s bid to avoid repaying nearly R29m in Constitutional Court

The Democratic Alliance has filed papers in the Constitutional Court opposing former president Jacob Zuma’s latest attempt to avoid repaying the nearly R28,960,774 the State says was spent on his personal legal fees.

What the courts have already decided

In 2018, a unanimous Full Bench of the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria found that Zuma was liable to repay amounts the State paid on his behalf towards his personal legal costs in his criminal prosecution and related litigation. The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.

The DA says Zuma is seeking leave to appeal after both the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria and the Supreme Court of Appeal refused him leave, and that his application “has no reasonable prospects of success and raises no genuine constitutional issue.”

Accounting and the repayment order

After a delay, the State Attorney produced an accounting of the amounts paid, totalling R28,960,774. The high court ordered Zuma to repay that amount, with interest.

DA’s position

The DA said the case is about a simple principle: “public money must be used for the public, not to fund the private legal battles of powerful politicians. No person, including a former president, is above the law. Mr Zuma received an unlawful benefit from the State. He must pay it back.”

Earlier refusal to grant leave

Judge Anthony Millar last year turned down Zuma’s application for leave to appeal the repayment judgment, saying he was not persuaded another court would reach a different conclusion. The judge commented:

“To keep the doors of the court open indefinitely to a litigant who refuses to accept the judgment on a particular matter, serves no legitimate purpose. All it does is serve to drain scarce judicial resources and to strengthen the view that accountability can be deferred for so long as one has the means to do so.”

He added that it “is destructive of the notion that all are equal before the law and confirms the view that ‘there is far too much law for those who can afford it and far too little for those who cannot’.”

Zuma’s legal team and constitutional arguments

Lawyers for Zuma have argued that state officials who authorised the payments should be held accountable. Advocate Thabani Masuku told the court that Zuma “was not granted the money through corruption, but that the legal fees were paid from the State coffers following incorrect legal advice to the State.” Masuku said while Zuma did benefit from the money, it “was not his doing that it was given to him” and that those officials who allowed the payments should be held liable because it was irregular expenditure.

In his Constitutional Court application, Zuma said the case raises important constitutional issues pertaining to the State’s liability for its own “unconstitutional conduct.” The DA, however, says the arguments now being raised are irrelevant because the only issue before the high court was the amount due.

Remaining points of contention

Zuma is also aggrieved that the high court ordered him to pay interest on the outstanding amount and maintains that he has no means of paying back the multi‑millions as calculated by the State Attorney.