Former president Jacob Zuma, who has said he is so short of cash that he has to sell clothing to pay his lawyers, lost his latest bid to challenge a court order to repay more than R16m spent by the state on his attempts to avoid trial on corruption charges.
This could mean that Zuma eventually uses services provided by Legal Aid SA, which helps poor people get tax-funded legal assistance. But the government will still cover his costs related to the Zondo inquiry.
Three judges of the high court in Pretoria, led by deputy judge president Aubrey Ledwaba, last week dismissed Zuma’s plea for leave to appeal against their finding that he was not entitled to state funding of his defence costs.
Zuma is waiting for a court ruling on his application for a stay of prosecution in the case related to SA’s notorious armsprocurement deal of the 1990s, in which he has been accused of taking bribes from French defence company Thales.
Zuma, whose scandalplagued presidency lasted from 2009 to 2018, faces nearly a quarter of a century behind bars if convicted. He has been
accused of trying to stall court processes with what his former advocate, Kemp J Kemp, calls the “Stalingrad defence”, fighting prosecution “in every room, in every street, in every house”.
Zuma maintains he is using the law to fight for his constitutional rights. But, with access to unlimited funding by taxpayers now cut off, that may no longer be a viable option.
Zuma’s lawyers are expected to petition the Supreme Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the Pretoria high court’s decision to order the state attorney to “take all necessary steps, including the institution of civil proceedings” to recover all the taxpayers’ money spent on Zuma’s corruption trial costs.
This could result in Zuma’s pension being attached, or the seizure of his assets.
The former president’s lawyers have also petitioned the Supreme Court of Appeal for leave to challenge an estimated R10m personal costs order granted against him, after he conducted fruitless attempts to challenge the state-capture report of former public protector Thuli Madonsela.
Madonsela’s report, which led to the formation of the statecapture commission headed by deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo, detailed instances in which the Gupta family, friends of his and business partners of his son, were alleged to have diverted resources towards their business interests.
Their influence was said to have even extended to the appointment of cabinet ministers, giving rise to the term state capture. Should both the costs rulings stand against Zuma, the former president may be forced to repay about R26m in legal fees. He told supporters in May in Pietermaritzburg that he was so broke he was forced to sell “hats, socks to pay for legal fees”.
In response to the successful court bid by the DA, EFF and other opposition parties to block continued state funding of his corruption trial costs, Zuma’s lawyers were adamant that he was entitled to funding because he allegedly used his position in government to commit the crimes he was accused of.
In December 2018, the Pretoria high court ruled that the corruption case involved Zuma in his personal capacity and that it “cannot be said to be in government’s or in the public interest to have appointed private attorneys for Mr Zuma and for the state to fund his private legal costs”. The court found that Zuma, like other accused people, was ”entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner using his own resources, or those offered by the Legal Aid Board”.
But the court decision has not blocked the state from funding Zuma’s legal costs at the statecapture inquiry, where his lawyers are now at loggerheads with officials over whether the former president will give evidence next month.
Presidency spokesperson Khusela Diko told Business Day on Wednesday that Zuma “applied for state funding for the Zondo commission and it was approved by the state attorney”.
DA federal executive chair James Selfe called that decision “inexplicable if not unlawful”.