By Vhahangwele Nemakonde.
The Jacob Zuma Foundation has criticised the Constitutional Court’s (ConCourt) dismissal of former president Jacob Zuma’s application for leave to appeal a court order requiring him to repay R28.9 million in state-funded legal fees.
In 2006 and 2008, Zuma’s legal representatives asked the State Attorney for help with counsel costs in his criminal cases.
However, in 2018, the Pretoria High Court ruled that the state was not liable for the costs and that Zuma must repay the money. Zuma has been appealing the 2018 decision through the country’s courts.
On 22 October 2025, the Pretoria High Court again ruled that Zuma was responsible for paying his own private legal costs. It ordered him to pay R28 960 774.34, plus interest, to the State Attorney within 60 days.
The court also ordered costs against Zuma.
He appealed the judgment, and the court dismissed his application on 4 December 2025..
In his ruling, Judge Anthony Millar said: “I am not persuaded that another Court would come to a different conclusion or that there is some other compelling reason why leave to appeal should be granted.”
On Thursday, 12 November, the ConCourt ruled against Zuma, with costs.
Should Zuma fail to settle the amount, his presidential pension benefits could be attached.
Jacob Zuma Foundation laments judgment
While the Foundation said it respected the court’s decision and accepted that its orders are binding, respect “does not require silence”.
However, the Foundation disputes the Court’s finding that it did not have jurisdiction. Accountability should follow the institution and the officials who made the decision, it said.
It further said Zuma did not interpret the State Attorney Act, authorise the expenditure or approve the legal fees payments.
“He accepted an undertaking made by the State. The Court found the State’s decision unlawful. It made no finding that President Zuma was responsible for that decision,” said the Foundation.
“The appeal therefore raised a direct question under section 172(1)(b) of the constitution. Is it just and equitable to order a person to repay the full amount personally when the State took the unlawful decision?
“That question goes to the limits of the courts’ remedial power. It also decides where accountability for unlawful public spending must fall, and what protection people who rely on the State’s own undertakings are owed. A matter does not stop being constitutional because the remedy involves money.”
Next steps
The Foundation said, subject to legal advice, it will advise Zuma to serve notice of a claim for indemnification on the Presidency, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and the State Attorney. The claim would cover any amount Zuma is compelled to pay.
It will also ask the Presidency for a written undertaking that it will pursue no execution, including attachment of his pension, until that claim is decided.
Furthermore, it will call on the Director-General in the Presidency and National Treasury to establish which officials authorised the expenditure and whether any personal liability arises.
“Where the State makes the unlawful decision, the State must answer for the consequences of its own error. The actual perpetrator must assume full accountability,” said the Jacob Zuma Foundation.