The Supreme Court of Appeal's (SCA's) dismissal of former president Jacob Zuma's appeal against a judgment which ruled that the state is not liable to cover his legal costs has been hailed as a step that will see Zuma repay more than R10m.
The SCA yesterday dismissed Zuma's appeal with costs on a punitive scale after he had challenged a ruling of the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria which found in December 2018 that the state was not liable for Zuma's legal costs which have been incurred in his personal capacity.
The full bench of the court had ordered that Zuma must pay back the money spent on his legal fees, which is estimated at more than R10m.
The DA and the EFF had both opposed Zuma's appeal in the SCA.
The DA said the latest ruling has confirmed that Zuma must pay back the money that the state spent on his personal legal costs.
"Today’s judgment dismissed Mr. Zuma’s appeal and confirms that the state attorney is only obliged to act if it is in the government's or the public's interest to do so. This was Mr. Zuma’s personal legal battle and he had no right to fund it with taxpayers' money," DA leader John Steenhuisen said in a statement.
Steenhuisen said they take strong exception to any abuse of public funds by current or former public officials, including former presidents.
"Mr Zuma’s tenure in office was disastrous for South Africa, its economy and our hard-won democracy. We are still reeling from the effects of state capture and the hollowing out of public institutions that accompanied it," Steenhuisen said.
Deputy judge president Aubrey Ledwaba, who delivered the judgment in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, stated that decisions of former president Thabo Mbeki and later President Cyril Ramaphosa for the state to pay for Zuma’s legal fees were unlawful and illegal.
The 28-page judgment stated that all necessary steps have to be taken to recover amounts paid by the state for Zuma's legal costs in the criminal prosecution which started around June 2005.
"The state attorney is directed ... to file a report, under oath and supported by the full and complete accounting... detailing the steps that have been taken to recover the amounts paid by the state for Mr Zuma's legal costs," read the judgment.
Zuma had unsuccessfully argued in the SCA that the high court had given more weight to the political interests of the political parties involved than advancing his constitutional rights.
"There is nothing on the record to sustain the inference that the presiding judges in this matter nor at a more generalised level in other matters involving Mr Zuma were biased or that they were not open-minded, impartial or fair," the judgment stated.
"The allegations were made with a reckless disregard for the truth and persisted during argument. They ought to have not been made at all."
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.