Taxpayers’ money ‘wasted on Zuma’

Judges say decision to fund former president’s legal costs in breach of law, order that he pay all fees since 2004

PRESIDENT Cyril Ramaphosa and Thabo Mbeki wasted public money following their “decisions” to pay for the legal fees of former president Jacob Zuma to defend corruption and fraud charges against him.

This was the view of political parties and civil society organisations after the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, ruled that Ramaphosa acted outside the law in his decision to fund Zuma’s impending criminal charges against him. A similar finding was also made against former president Mbeki, as initial payments for Zuma’s legal costs began during his tenure in 2005.

The full Bench of the high court also said the millions of rands – which the court has estimated to be between R16 million and R32m – could have been used to improve the living conditions of the poor.

The judges also found that: “If the state is burdened with the high legal costs of those public office bearers who are charged with those crimes, the taxpayers bears the burden and poor communities continue to be denied access to essential services…In this instance, financially assisting Mr Zuma is to have litigated on a most luxurious scale,” the judges said.

Presidential spokesperson Khusela Diko was not available for comment. Mbeki’s spokesperson Siyabulela Gebe referred questions to the Presidency.

All opposition parties and Casac (the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution) concurred with the judges’ decision.

EFF spokesperson Mbuyiseni Ndlozi said the judgment was a milestone in a “greater and broader effort to save the taxpayers’ money from politicians” who used their funds for personal needs. Casac executive director Lawson Naidoo said the judgment clarified the law on actions to be taken by government when one of their own politicians faced similar allegations.

DA leader Mmusi Maimane said: “Ramaphosa should have done the right thing and made Zuma pay for his own defence, without the people and the courts forcing him to do so.”

UDM leader Bantu Holomisa said he was not surprised by decision.

“There is consistency in the decisions of the judges. It began last year, when Judge Dunstan Mlambo also ruled that Zuma was personally liable for the costs of his application to block the report on state of capture,” he said.

The judges ruled that the charges of corruption, fraud, racketeering, money laundering and tax evasion against Zuma – who is due to stand trial in May next year – had nothing to do with the State and his former positions. The judges said the 783 payments Zuma allegedly received from convicted fraudster and his financial adviser Schabir Shaik “were outside his official remuneration”.

Last month, Zuma applied for a stay of prosecution against all 18 charges against him, citing malicious prosecution. The matter was postponed until May to allow the State to respond to his application. Yesterday, Deputy Judge President Aubrey Ledwaba was scathing in his ruling against the Presidency and State Attorney’s Office for their for failure to properly interpret Section 3 of the State Attorney Act and Treasury Regulations. The Presidency had in March, in reply to the DA’s court application to stop funding for Zuma, told the court that it did so in accordance with the State Attorney’s Act.

Judge Ledwaba said: “These provisions did not authorise the impugned decisions by the Presidency and by the State attorney to procure private legal representatives for Mr Zuma, and for the State to pay for his private legal costs in defending the corruption and other criminal charges against him.”

The judges ordered Zuma to pay all legal fees since 2004.