DA fights to scrap Zuma’s legal deal

Former president Jacob Zuma would not have resorted to the courts so many times to avoid facing criminal charges if he did not have state funding, the EFF told the high court on Tuesday.

For more than a decade Zuma has used many court applications to avoid charges of corruption, fraud, money laundering and racketeering, mostly at state expense.

This was made possible by an agreement the former president had with the presidency that allowed him to use state resources to defend himself. The agreement included an understanding that Zuma would pay back costs if he lost cases.

How much Zuma would have to pay back is not entirely clear. The DA and the presidency say it amounts to about R15m, but the EFF estimates costs at about R32m.

Tuesday’s application to review and set aside that agreement with the presidency was brought by the DA and is supported by the EFF.

The DA argued that Zuma should not have received state funding as he was charged in his personal capacity. The official opposition also demanded the former president pay back the money the state has spent.

The DA’s counsel, Sean Rosenberg SC, said there was no reason Zuma could not afford to repay the millions in legal fees as his income between 1999 and 2017 amounted to about R30m.

Zuma faces 16 charges of fraud, corruption, money laundering and racketeering, stemming from 783 alleged payments to him relating to the arms deal.

The charges were dropped in 2009 and reinstated in 2018.

Zuma was reindicted on March 16 after he made fresh representation on why he should not be charged.

This was after the Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the court finding that the decision by former acting prosecutions boss Mokotedi Mpshe to drop the charges was irrational.

Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, counsel for the EFF, told the court the charges against Zuma had nothing to do with the office of the presidency. He said Zuma was given preferential treatment because he was president of the ANC and of the country. Ngcukaitobi said a total of nine cases were involved, each subcase funded by the state.

He said Zuma was able to embark on what the former president’s then counsel, Kemp J Kemp, called a “Stalingrad strategy” only because he had “unlimited access to funds”.

Thabani Masuku SC, for Zuma, said the application should be dismissed as the party should have brought the application years ago when it first became aware that Zuma’s criminal trial was being funded by the state.