Holes in reasons for Zuma funding
Contradictions exposed in court reveal former president not legally entitled when defending corruption charges
FORMER PRESIDENT Jacob Zuma faces the prospect of being denied state funds to defend corruption charges against him, following shocking revelations that the state could have given contradictory information about its decision to appoint a lawyer for him.
Yesterday, EFF legal counsel advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi exposed contradictions in the versions of Zuma’s legal team led by advocate Thabani Masuku and an affidavit submitted by the State Attorney’s office in support of the former president’s claim that he was legally entitled to state funds to defend the charges.
The contradictions emerged after Masuku had initially argued that the legal funding of Zuma was purely based on the prescripts of section 3 (1) of the State Attorney’s Act saying it allowed the state to “fund” Zuma’s legal fees by securing Michael Hulley, a private lawyer, for him.
The DA and the EFF, which made an application in the high court asking it to stop any further legal funding for Zuma, also submitted that section 3 (1) did not allow the state to employ a private lawyer to defend Zuma.
But Masuku disagreed. He said the section was aimed at avoiding any “conflict of interest” as the state was also going to fund Zuma’s accuser.
The former president’s counsel insisted on his interpretation, despite the full bench of the High Court in Pretoria disagreeing with him.
The full bench said its interpretation of section 3 (1) meant that the State Attorney was to provide legal services to Zuma, including being in control of litigation against him.
In his reply to the judges, Masuku said the provision of legal services and funding meant the same thing.
Supporting his version, Masuku said similar protection was given to “judges even if they were accused of rape, murder or even drunken driving.
“The aim is to protect the dignity of the judge and the independence of the judiciary,” Masuku said.
Masuku, however, denied that any clause of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) was used to provide legal assistance for Zuma. “There was no need for it,” he said. However, it was at this stage that Ngcukaitobi pointed out the contradictions in Zuma’s and the state’s versions.
The state made a sworn affidavit, saying it considered section 3 (1) and also “galvanised section 3 of the PFMA” in securing services of Hulley”.
The state has since decided not to defend its affidavit.
Ngcukaitobi said the state, in its own version, used PFMA, but failed to follow its requirements prior to appointing Hulley.
He also asked the high court to reject Masuku’s version that the EFF knew a long time ago that the state was funding Zuma.
Ngcukaitobi said his client only knew the arrangement when its leader Julius Malema questioned President Cyril Ramaphosa about it in March. He said the EFF decided to lodge the application after Ramaphosa had indicated to Parliament that the state could continue to fund Zuma’s legal battles, including the upcoming corruption charge on November 30.
BALDWIN NDABA