The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has issued a ruling ordering former President Jacob Zuma to reimburse the state nearly R28.9 million, funds used to finance his legal defence in the long-standing arms deal case.
The court found that the state attorney’s decision to cover Zuma’s personal legal costs was “grossly irregular and unlawful.” The judgment, delivered on Tuesday, also stipulates that interest on the debt must be paid.
Legal analyst Advocate Modidima Mannya, providing insight on the ruling, explained that the original decision to fund Zuma’s defence was based on an undertaking from the former president to refund the money if he were found guilty. He drew a parallel to a similar arrangement with the late former police commissioner, Jackie Selebi.
“The reality is in law it was grossly irregular and unlawful for the state attorney to incur such expenditure in respect of an individual,” stated Advocate Mannya.
He addressed the contention from Zuma’s camp that the officials who authorized the payments should be held responsible, not him. Mannya described this as a “sad proposition,” especially from a former head of state.
“As the overall chief executive of the republic… you can imagine if every single civil servant here has got this type of arrangement,” Mannya said. “It doesn’t make sense at all.”
When asked if Zuma could successfully appeal the verdict, Mannya expressed skepticism. He argued that there is no legal basis for the state to fund an individual’s defence against criminal charges, as the state is the primary opponent to criminal conduct.
“The matter related to the individual conduct of Mr. Zuma in his personal capacity,” Mannya explained. “I will find it strange if the government and the parliament passes law to declare certain conduct criminal but then they come back and say we must protect the very same people who breach those laws.”
The ruling raises questions about the systems within government that allowed the bill to accumulate to over R28 million before being halted. Mannya suggested that undue pressure is often placed on administrators to comply with unlawful instructions, a phenomenon known as “career limiting,” where officials who refuse wrongdoing face punishment.
According to the judgment, Zuma has approximately 60 days to settle the debt. Failure to do so could result in the attachment of his movable and immovable assets, including his presidential pension.
Mannya noted that Zuma could seek to pay the amount in installments or appeal the judgment, a process that could see the matter “spend quite a nice holiday in court for a while.” However, if the debt is not paid in full, the amount will continue to accumulate interest.
“It will be very interesting to see… because there are limits to how much you can attach on a person’s pension,” Mannya said, referring to the lifelong salary former presidents receive.
The former president’s camp has indicated they will be consulting with his legal team in the coming hours and days to determine their next steps.