By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The High Court in Pretoria reserved judgement in the Presidency and State attorney’s bid to recover the R28.9 million spent on Jacob Zuma’s defence in the arms deal corruption case.
The application follows a 2024 Supreme Court of Appeal ruling that Zuma was not entitled to taxpayer-funded legal support, and must reimburse the state.
The R28.9 million was allocated to cover Zuma’s legal expenses during his defence against charges related to the 1999 arms procurement deal. These funds were used for legal representation and associated costs throughout the protracted legal proceedings.
The state is now seeking to reclaim this amount, along with interest, following a 2024 Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruling that Zuma was ineligible for taxpayer-funded legal assistance and must reimburse the state.
Zuma’s legal team, has argued that repayment is not feasible, but the state is ready to enforce the debt.
Advocate George Avvakoumides, acting on behalf of the Presidency and the State Attorney, argued that two courts – the Gauteng High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal in earlier judgments, made it clear that the State money spent on his private legal fees must be paid back.
“Avvakoumides said Zuma used these funds to litigate on a luxurious scale. He told the court that they are not unsympathetic towards Zuma, as he was advised that he was entitled to public funding, which he received until it was stopped. But, he said, Zuma benefitted, and the rule of law must prevail.”
The state’s assistance to Zuma in the matter stretched back to payments to his then lawyer, Michael Hulley, in 2006, and continued until the Democratic Alliance approached the high court to turn off the tap after President Cyril Ramaphosa said in reply to a parliamentary question in 2018 that, by then, it totalled R15.3-million.
Advocate Thabani Masuku for Zuma, told the high court that it is strange that the Presidency and the State Attorney, who previously defended the funding of Zuma’s legal woes vociferously, now turn around and want him to repay the same money.
He argued that the Presidency and the State Attorney are under the wrong impression that the payment obligation flowing from the 2024 SCA ruling places Zuma under a legal duty to reimburse the state.
He further submitted that the state “is the perpetrator of this unconstitutional violence”.
“He asked for money. That is okay, once he put it in system, the system had to act constitutionally. He was not asking for the system to act unconstitutionally. If he had known, the very first time he asked for these costs to be paid, if he had known that this was an unauthorised payment, that would have been a different case,” said Masuku.
He maintained that no conduct by Zuma could have prevented the unconstitutional payments.
“The only people, the only culprits, now speak loudly about the illegality and the rule of law. The very perpetrators today are asking for this payment to be made. Given that it is the state, there has to be a higher bar in assessing its conduct towards a single individual,” he said.
Masuku described the Presidency and State Attorney’s actions as “mean and vicious”, arguing that it was unjust for the state to pursue Zuma for repayment.
Advocate Sean Rosenberg, acting for the DA, also argued that if the court ordered him to repay this amount and he cannot, the court should order that his pension should be attached to ensure payment of the debt.
This prompted a judge to questioned how Zuma will live if his entire pension benefit is attached to repay taxpayer funds, which were unlawfully used to fund his corruption trial defence.
“How is Zuma going to live? He is elderly, he is in his 80s,” Judge Anthony Millar asked Rosenberg?
“We must be mindful that everyone is entitled to live and not to be driven to impoverishment,” the judge said.
The case has attracted national attention, reflecting broader public debates over Zuma’s legal battles, his time in office, and the use of state funds for private legal matters.
It remains to be seen whether Zuma will be compelled to settle a bill that has already stirred controversy and political commentary across the country.
Zuma stand accused of corruption, racketeering, money laundering and fraud related to the 1999 arms deal. Zuma is accused of receiving payments totalling R4.1-million between 1995 and 2004 from his former financial adviser Schabir Shaik and Shaik’s companies to further French Company Thales’ interests.
The case is due to return to court on 4 December 2025, with the State likely to argue that it should proceed regardless of whether Zuma challenges the Pietermaritzburg High Court ruling which dismissed bid to have criminal charges against them dropped.