Cyril backs decision for Zuma to use state funds to fight charges

Zuma has until Tuesday to make such a formal application. He may also apply for a stay of prosecution.

He faces one count of racketeering, two counts of corruption, one count of money laundering and 12 counts of fraud. He is accused of profiting more than R4 million from 783 payments through his former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik.

Shaik was sentenced to 15 years in jail in 2005 when he was convicted of the same crimes.

Zuma’s co-accused, arms manufacturer Thales South Africa, also intends to make representation to National Director of Public Prosecutions Shaun Abrahams on why charges against it should be dropped.

But this week, their court actions were emboldened when Ramaphosa, Minister of Justice and Correctional Services Michael Masutha and Zuma filed notices to oppose the DA’S application.

They are now expected to file written affidavits justifying their decisions.

In March, the DA through its federal executive chairperson, James Selfe, asked the court to interdict Ramaphosa from allowing Zuma to use state funds for his private legal challenge.

In papers filed on March 23, Selfe argued Ramaphosa had no legal grounds to make such a decision, which would allow Zuma to challenge the 16 charges of corruption, fraud, racketeering and money laundering.

Selfe filed the papers after Ramaphosa had confirmed in his reply to questions by EFF leader Julius Malema, that the state would pay Zuma’s legal fees.

Ramaphosa told Malema in March the decision to allow taxpayers’ money to be used was done in accordance with Section 3(3) of the State Attorney Act of 1957, saying it was allowable because the alleged offences were committed while Zuma held an official position in government as MEC for economic development in Kwazulu-natal.

He also said that Zuma had made a commitment to then-president Thabo Mbeki that he would pay back the money should he be convicted.

Selfe disagreed, arguing that Section 3(3) does not allow Ramaphosa or any other government official to make such a decision to impose on the state the obligation to pay Zuma’s personal legal costs. He said the function of the state attorney’s office was to perform work on behalf of the government.

In his papers, Selfe said: “While this function may extend to providing legal services to public officials in their official capacity, it does not permit the state attorney to provide legal services to public officials who sue or are being sued or prosecuted in their capacity.”

““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.

“The public interest demands that such damages are prosecuted and met to ensure public accountability, the promotion of good governance and the protection of the rule of law,” Selfe said.

“The litigation that Mr Zuma hias conducted following his indictment has been calculated to and has in fact served to, obstruct and delay the administration of justice.

He also asked the court to set aside any agreement, if any, entered into between Zuma and Mbeki to repay the costs after the completion of criminal hearing