Zuma’s legal fee woes deepen
Ruling a victory for taxpayers
FORMER President Jacob Zuma is fast running out of options to continue with his legal battle against corruption charges, after he suffered yet another major setback yesterday.
His legal woes deepened after President Cyril Ramaphosa said he would abide by a court ruling that the former president pay for his legal bills in relation to his criminal charges.
The High Court in Pretoria slammed Ramaphosa and former president Thabo Mbeki for paying for Zuma, saying the ex-president was likely to pay between R16 million and R32m in legal fees that the Presidency paid for since 2004 while he was still deputy president.
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 court said the 783 payments Zuma allegedly received from convicted fraudster and financial adviser Schabir Shaik were outside his official remuneration.
“The alleged payments or gratifications were solely for Mr Zuma’s benefit,” the Judges said.
A statement from the Presidency said: “The Presidency specifically notes the court’s interpretation of the applicable law; the Presidency will abide by the court’s decision, in line with a notice to this effect filed with the court in May 2018”.
Last month, Zuma was held liable for losing his appeal against a decision to pay for the costs of his appeal when he tried to overturn a ruling made in his legal challenge to block the release of the state of capture report by former public protector, Thuli Madonsela.
In 2016 the Constitutional Court ordered Zuma to pay R7.8m for non-security upgrades at his Nkandla homestead. He secured a loan for the amount from the embattled VBS Mutual Bank.
Yesterday, Deputy Judge President Aubrey Ledwaba was scathing in his ruling against the Presidency and State Attorney for their for failing to properly interpret section 3 of the State Attorney Act and Treasury Regulations.
“These provisions did not authorise Presidency and 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, and in the ancillary or related civil legal proceedings,” Ledwaba said
“The impugned decisions were not authorised by the statutory provisions invoked by the Presidency and by the State Attorney and consequently amount to a breach of the principle of legality.”
Political parties and civil society organisations welcomed the decision and said taxpayers had suffered.
DA leader Mmusi Maimane said Ramaphosa should have done the right thing and made Zuma to pay for his own defence, without the people and the courts forcing him to do so’.
“The system of corruption where those who loot the state are then able to defend themselves using public money has been stopped,” Maimane said.
EFF spokesperson Mbuyiseni Ndlozi said the judgment was a milestone “to African News Agency (ANA) save the taxpayers’ money from politicians” who used their funds for their own personal needs.
UDM leader Bantu Holomisa praised the judges for their decision:
“There is consistency in the decisions. It began last year, when Judge Dunstan Mlambo ruled that Zuma was liable for the costs of his application to block the report on state of capture.”