Former South African President Jacob Zuma has been ordered by the Pretoria High Court to repay nearly R29 million in legal fees that were unlawfully covered by the State. The judgment, delivered on Wednesday, follows years of legal battles and public outcry over the misuse of taxpayer funds to finance Zuma’s personal legal defense.
The ruling brings long-awaited accountability after the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) launched legal proceedings to challenge the State’s payment of Zuma’s extensive legal bills.
The Pretoria High Court confirmed that the funds were used to cover his personal legal expenses in various criminal cases and related matters—most notably, charges linked to corruption, fraud, and money laundering dating back to the arms deal scandal of the early 2000s.
Court Finds Zuma’s State-Funded Legal Costs Unconstitutional
In its scathing judgment, the court found that the State’s funding of his legal fees violated the principles of public accountability and the rule of law. According to the ruling, there was no lawful basis for the State to cover these costs, especially given that the charges Zuma faced were not in relation to his duties as President, but rather personal criminal conduct.
The court explicitly dismissed arguments made by Zuma’s legal team, who claimed that he should not be personally liable for the repayment. Judges ruled that the order applied directly to Zuma as an individual and not to the Office of the Presidency or any other government entity.
The judgment states:
“The legal expenses were incurred for the personal benefit of Mr. Zuma and cannot be justified as expenses of State.”
Jacob Zuma now has 60 days to repay the R28.9 million owed to the State. Should he fail to meet this deadline, the State Attorney has been instructed to initiate asset attachment proceedings, which could include the seizure of Zuma’s presidential pension—a move likely to spark both legal and political debate.
While the court emphasized that any asset seizure must comply with judicial oversight, it sent a strong message that no one is above the law, not even a former head of state.
The State Attorney is also required to report to the court every three months on its efforts to recover the debt, ensuring transparency and continued public accountability in the matter.
Although the debt itself is now enforceable, the court ruled that interest on the R29 million will begin to accrue from October 2026, giving Zuma a brief window to settle the amount before additional financial penalties are added.
Legal analysts note that this grace period for interest does not delay the recovery efforts, and the State Attorney may still proceed with collection and seizure efforts if Zuma does not act within the 60-day window.
Both the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), who brought the legal challenge, welcomed the judgment as a victory for accountability and the proper use of public funds.
DA leader John Steenhuisen said:
“Today’s ruling affirms that public funds cannot be used as a personal piggy bank for politicians. Zuma must pay back the money.”
EFF spokesperson Sinawo Tambo echoed those sentiments, stating:
“This is a win for every South African taxpayer. Zuma’s years of looting and impunity must come to an end, and this is one step in that direction.”
The judgment is also being seen as a broader statement on the need for clean governance and a transparent judicial system in post-apartheid South Africa.
This is just one of many legal challenges facing Jacob Zuma, who remains embroiled in multiple cases linked to state capture, corruption, and attempts to undermine judicial processes. Despite serving time for contempt of court in 2021, Zuma continues to wield influence in certain political circles, especially through his association with the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party.
It remains unclear whether Zuma intends to appeal the ruling or comply with the court’s order. However, any failure to act could lead to the historic seizure of assets from a former president—an unprecedented move in democratic South Africa.
The court’s decision to hold Zuma personally liable for nearly R29 million in unlawful legal funding marks a significant milestone in the country’s ongoing fight against corruption. As South Africans continue to grapple with the legacy of state capture and fiscal mismanagement, this ruling sends a clear message: even former presidents are not above the law.
Whether Zuma pays up or attempts to delay through further litigation, the State and the courts have now been empowered to pursue justice—and reclaim public funds misused in his defense.
Source- EWN
