Zuma must pay back the money

The Gauteng High Court has ruled that former President Jacob Zuma must personally pay back almost R29 million in legal costs that were incurred on his behalf by the state. 

Zuma has 60 days to repay the R28.9 million starting from today. If he fails to do so, a warrant will be issued to seize his property to cover the debt, which can include movable and immovable property.

This could also include his presidential pension benefit, although the attachment of the pension will require a further court order. 

The court stipulated that Zuma’s presidential pension is not protected by the Pension Funds Act, unlike standard pensions. 

The latest court judgment, which was handed down electronically on 22 October, is related to an original High Court judgment from 2018, which ruled that the state is not liable for Zuma’s legal costs. 

Zuma took the case to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which confirmed the judgment in April 2021.

In the latest court case, Zuma argued that the previous court orders did not specify that he himself had to repay the money. 

He asserted that the state should instead sue the government officials in the State Attorney’s office who gave him the incorrect advice and allowed the state to sponsor Zuma’s court proceedings in the first place. 

The Gauteng High Court rejected this defence. The judge held that the original court orders were “clear and unequivocal” and that the courts intended for Zuma to pay back the money personally. 

The Supreme Court of Appeal specifically stated that the necessary action was “an order directing Mr Zuma to repay the state the legal costs on his behalf.”

The case traces back to an agreement signed by then-President Thabo Mbeki, which authorised state funding for Zuma’s defence while he was Deputy President.

This taxpayer funding was used to defend 18 charges of fraud, corruption, racketeering, and money laundering, specifically relating to the controversial R30 billion, 1999 Arms Deal. 

Following challenges by the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), the High Court ordered a full accounting and recovery of the funds. The latest judgment upholds this order.

South Africa’s notorious Arms Deal

The Arms Deal, a R30 billion military procurement from European firms like Thales, remains mired in claims of kickbacks and political interference.

Broadly, the deal involved purchasing fighter jets, submarines, frigates, and helicopters from international suppliers, primarily European companies like BAE Systems, Saab, and Thales.

Within months, suspicions of bribery, conflicts of interest and procedural violations triggered official investigations.

It became a decades-long scandal due to widespread allegations of corruption, fraud, and political interference, implicating high-profile figures, including politicians, arms dealers, and intermediaries.

Convictions:

• Tony Yengeni: Convicted of fraud in 2003 for accepting a discounted luxury Mercedes-Benz from a company linked to the arms deal and for misrepresenting this to Parliament. He was sentenced to four years in prison but served only five months, released on parole in January 2007.

• Schabir Shaik: Convicted in 2005 of fraud and corruption, including soliciting a bribe from Thales on behalf of close associate, deputy president Zuma, related to the same arms deal. He received a 15-year sentence but was released on medical parole in March 2009 after serving about two and a half years, citing terminal illness.

International and local probes:

• BAE Systems paid ~$450 million in 2010 to settle US and UK investigations into false accounting and illicit payments linked to global arms deals, including South Africa’s.

• Saab admitted in 2011 that ~R24 million was paid via BAE Systems to a consultant to secure South African fighter jet contracts.

Zuma’s role

The former president, now leader of the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP), is accused of, among other things, attempting to receive bribes through Shaik to shield Thales from investigation.

First charged in 2005, Zuma avoided trial for years through legal challenges and political backing within the majority ANC.

On April 28, 2016, the Supreme Court of Appeals reinstated corruption charges against Zuma, ruling the decision to drop them irrational.

They said that dropping the charges in 2009, the year Zuma was inaugurated as President, was “irrational.”

It reinstated the counts of corruption, fraud, racketeering, and money laundering, tied to 783 alleged illegal payments

Timeline highlights:

• 2005: Zuma first charged
• 2009: Charges dropped
• 2016: High Court orders reinstatement
• 2018: Zuma charged again, two months after resigning as president.

Zuma’s criminal trial in this matter has faced two decades of delays, with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) accusing him of “serial abuse” of court processes through repeated appeals.

The NPA, while not directly involved in this civil matter relating to legal fees, said that it is pressing ahead with Zuma’s criminal trial.

It recently urged the KwaZulu-Natal High Court to proceed despite his latest appeals, including bids to disqualify lead prosecutor Billy Downer.

The agency argues that further delays undermine public interest in resolving a case that has cost taxpayers millions and exposed systemic corruption.