Appeal court throws out Zuma plea

Former president Jacob Zuma suffered yet another legal blow on Tuesday, losing his appeal against an order requiring him to repay legal costs in his corruption trial that have since ballooned to at least R25m. The costs relate to the charges against Zuma in the arms deal matter. The Supreme Court of Appeal threw out his appeal against a judgment that ruled he must repay the state for his legal costs dating back from 2005.

Former president Jacob Zuma suffered yet another legal blow on Tuesday, losing his appeal against an order requiring him to repay legal costs in his corruption trial that have since ballooned to at least R25m.

The costs relate to the charges against Zuma in the arms deal matter. The Supreme Court of Appeal threw out his appeal against a judgment that he must repay the state for his legal costs dating back from 2005. This means Zuma will have to pay back his legal fees as previously ordered by the high court in Pretoria and will have to fund his defence when the case resumes on May 17. He has previously said he was broke and could not afford his legal fees.

Zuma stands accused of taking bribes from arms dealers in the 1990s. The corruption case relates to actions he undertook in his personal capacity and the state should not be liable for his legal fees, the Supreme Court of Appeal said in a judgment handed down on Tuesday.

Zuma, who is also awaiting a Constitutional Court judgment for defying an order to appear at the state capture commission, appealed against the high court order that he repay his personal legal costs after the DA and EFF won their case to have him repay his legal fees.

THE FORMER PRESIDENT WILL HAVE TO PAY BACK HIS LEGAL FEES AS PREVIOUSLY ORDERED BY THE HIGH COURT IN PRETORIA

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that funds “to the tune of some R25m were borne by the state despite neither a request, nor authorisation for the payment of those funds”. The court found it was neither in the government’s nor the public’s interest that taxpayer money be used to delay or stop cases in which government officials are being held accountable for corruption.

“Allowing officials to resist being held accountable, by drawing on state resources to obstruct or delay a prosecution, subverts the government’s and the public’s interest,” the ruling reads.

Zuma was also slapped with a punitive higher costs order — because of his attack on the judiciary after he accused three high court judges of bias and political motives. The judgment reads Zuma’s attack “scandalises the court” and while courts are not immune to robust criticism, the attacks on the judges should not have been made.

Zuma’s argument that the EFF and the DA brought the case in 2018 and was thus too late as his legal costs began in 2006 and 2008 was described as “audacious” by the court.