Zuma must pay costs, says DA
Opposition party seeks court order on former president’s legal fees
The DA wants the High Court in Pretoria to order that former president Jacob Zuma pay back to the Treasury any money that the state has paid towards his personal legal costs in relation to the corruption charges he faces.
The opposition party wants the money paid back within three months of the order.
The EFF has also instructed its lawyers to prepare a court application to have the decision that the state pay these fees set aside and declared unconstitutional. The legal costs for the former president trying to avoid having to face charges of fraud, corruption and racketeering amounted to R15.3m.
Earlier in March, after a nearly 10-year battle by the DA to ensure Zuma has his day in court, national director of public prosecutions Shaun Abrahams announced that the former president would need to face the charges.
Zuma’s lawyer, Michael Hulley, has indicated that Zuma could challenge this decision.
In response to a question in Parliament, President Cyril Ramaphosa said the state was paying Zuma’s legal costs because the allegations against him came while he was in the employ of government.
The president is a respondent in the matter now brought by the DA. Presidency spokeswoman Khusela Diko said the merits of the DA’s argument would be studied and legal counsel consulted before the Presidency made a decision on whether to oppose the matter. Hulley could not be reached for comment.
DA federal executive chairman James Selfe said in court papers the state attorney and the president had invoked sections 3(1) and 3(3) of the State Attorney Act to justify the decision.
However, Selfe argued that these provisions did not authorise the state attorney or the president to decide to impose on the state the obligation to pay Zuma’s personal legal costs.
He said section 3(1) was clear that the function of the state attorney’s office was to perform work on behalf of government, and while it extended to providing legal services to public officials in their official capacity, it did not permit the office to provide legal services to officials who were being sued or prosecuted in their private capacity.
The act stated that the state attorney’s involvement in matters where the government was not a party was justified by the government’s interest or concern in the matter or the public interest factor, Selfe said.
“Neither of these requirements [is] met in the case of Mr Zuma’s defence against criminal prosecution and the catalogue of civil litigation that has ensued in relation thereto,” he said.
“The government can have no legitimate interest or concern in the conduct of a defence against criminal charges, particularly where the alleged crimes concern the abuse of public office,” Selfe said.
Zuma had abused the courts to avoid public accountability, in defiance of the public interest, Selfe said.
There was therefore no legal basis for the state to cover Zuma’s personal legal costs.
The DA wants the court to review and set aside this decision to pay the legal costs of his criminal prosecution.
NEITHER OF THESE REQUIREMENTS IS MET IN THE CASE OF MR ZUMA’S DEFENCE AGAINST CRIMINAL PROSECUTION