Zuma wants to keep state-funded millions for trial
FORMER president Jacob Zuma yesterday took his fight to retain millions of rand in state-funded legal services for his criminal prosecution to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).
Zuma is trying to overturn the decision of the full bench of the North Gauteng High Court – Judge Piet Meyer, Deputy Judge President Aubrey Ledwaba and Judge Elizabeth Kubushi – which declared that the state was not liable for his legal costs incurred in his personal capacity.
In their December 2018 ruling, the judges reviewed and set aside the decisions taken by the Presidency and the Office of the State Attorney between June 2005 and March 2018 for the government to cover Zuma’s legal costs incurred personally in applications relating to his criminal prosecution.
The legal costs incurred have been calculated to be between R16.8 million and R32m.
The high court also directed the state attorney to compile a full and complete accounting of all the legal costs incurred by Zuma in his personal capacity and take all the necessary steps to institute civil proceedings to recover them.
However, Zuma asked the SCA whether it was in the interests of justice for the high court to overlook the unreasonable delay by the DA in instituting its review application.
According to Zuma, the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act of 2000 only makes provision that the period of 90 days that applications should be lodged may be reduced or the 90 days or 180 days may be extended for a fixed period.
However, this can only be by agreement between the parties or, failing such agreement, by a court or tribunal, on application by the person or administrator concerned.
The act also allows the court or tribunal to grant an application where the interests of justice require.
Zuma also argued that it was not in the interests of justice for the high court to overlook the unreasonable delay by the DA and the EFF to institute their review applications under the principle of legality.
According to the former head of state, the DA became aware of the decision to fund the legal costs in his personal capacity in September 2008 and the EFF did not bring its application in reasonable time as the move dates back as far as 2006.
The two opposition parties believe that the State’s decision to fund Zuma’s legal costs in the criminal trial and related litigation violated the State Attorney Act of 1957 and Treasury Regulations.
The full bench agreed with the DA and the EFF that the requirements of the State Attorney Act were not met in Zuma’s case as the details of his criminal case relate to transactions that were in his personal capacity and not on the government’s behalf.
”It cannot be said to be in the government’s interest or in the public interest to have appointed private attorneys for Zuma and for the state to fund his private legal costs in defending the 18 criminal charges including racketeering, corruption, money laundering, fraud and tax evasion and in the related civil proceedings,” the judges found.
The SCA is yet to pass judgment.