The Pretoria high court has ordered former president Jacob Zuma to pay the state attorney R28.9m, with interest, for money advanced for his legal fees in his personal capacity.
These are all the monies disbursed by the state towards Zuma’s legal costs relating to a criminal prosecution and ancillary litigation instituted against him in his personal capacity.
The court said in the event that Zuma fails to satisfy the judgment debt within 60 days of the court’s order, the state attorney is directed to have a writ of execution issued “for the attachment and sale in execution of immovable and/or movable and/or incorporeal property of the first respondent, to satisfy the judgment debt”. This includes Zuma’s presidential pension benefit, or portion thereof, if required.
The judgment passed on Wednesday follows an earlier judgment made by the full bench of the Pretoria high court in 2018 that the state was not liable for the costs that had been disbursed.
The full bench declared invalid the decision to make payment to Zuma and reviewed it and set it aside. The 2018 judgment also made further directory orders for the recovery of what had been paid.
However, Zuma appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal and his appeal was dismissed in April 2021.
In October 2021, the state attorney addressed a letter of demand to Zuma for the repayment of R18.2m.
Later on, the state discovered an additional R10.7m and accordingly sought an order for repayment of R28.9m.
It was argued for both the state and the DA that the judgment of the full bench was clear and unequivocal in its terms that it was Zuma that should be ordered to make the repayment of the R28.9m.
In court on Wednesday, various defences were raised on behalf of Zuma.
The court noted that the present proceedings related to the implementation of a court order that was in force.
“The various defences raised all relate to matters that either were or ought to have been raised before the full court or the Supreme Court of Appeal. They have, in my view, no bearing whatsoever in the present proceedings and for this reason I do not intend to deal with them,” judge Anthony Millar said.
However, Millar said there was one defence which was argued for Zuma that merited consideration because it fell within the orders of the full bench and the SCA.
“The main defence which was argued, was that the order of the full court, in its terms … does not specifically provide that it is Mr Zuma himself who must be ordered to make the repayment. In other words, it is a question of the interpretation of the order,” Millar said.
It was argued that since the decision to pay the legal costs in the first place had been made by the state attorney, the primary party against whom recourse ought to have been sought should have been the office of the state attorney and the officials who had given the advice that the costs could lawfully be paid.
It was also argued that it was the “constitutional delinquency” on the part of officials within the state attorney through their incorrect opinions and advice that the present situation had been brought about.
“Upon a plain reading of the judgment of the full court, it is readily apparent that it intended that the order made relating to repayment was made in respect of Mr Zuma personally,” Millar said.
The SCA came to a similar conclusion, the judge said.
TimesLIVE