Zuma's Appeal Bid to Avoid Paying Back R28.9 Million in Legal Fees Faces Scrutiny
Jacob Zuma has launched proceedings to appeal a judgment that ordered him to repay R28.9 million in legal fees within 60 days, a sum the state spent on his corruption trial defence. The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has reserved its decision on whether to grant Zuma leave to appeal.
In October, the court ruled that Zuma was personally liable for the funds, with interest, and stipulated that his presidential pension could be attached if he failed to pay within the given timeframe. Zuma is now challenging this judgment.
The legal saga dates back to 2021 when the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) affirmed that Zuma was no longer entitled to state funding for his legal battles and mandated the state to recover funds already disbursed. Subsequently, in 2024, the state initiated legal action to recoup the R28.9 million.
Judge Anthony Millar, who issued the original judgment in October, presided over the appeal request hearing, which took place online. After two hours of arguments from both sides, Millar stated that he needed time to consider the points raised more carefully. A decision to grant leave to appeal could potentially stall the recovery of the funds from Zuma until the appeal process is complete.
Legal Arguments Presented
Advocate Thabani Masuku, representing Zuma, argued that permission to appeal should be granted because the October judgment was flawed and misinterpreted previous rulings, particularly regarding where the liability to repay the money resides. Masuku contended that while Millar had included Zuma's name in the case when supporting previous rulings, the order was not specifically directed at him.
Masuku emphasised that "The full court order is very precise. It does not mention the words ‘against Mr Zuma,’" He further argued that Millar did not adequately consider the legal defences Zuma had raised at the time.
Masuku told Millar, "We submit, there was an error in the way the court approached the operative order of the [previous] courts," adding that the court must consider who else might also be liable to repay the money.
Advocate George Avvakoumide, representing the State, countered that the previous court orders clearly established Zuma's liability. He argued that Zuma and his legal team were attempting to rehash arguments that had already been made.
Avvakoumide asserted, "The amount was not disputed, the services were not disputed, and it is so that Zuma was the beneficiary of each and every service contained in the [R28.9-million] account." He appealed to Millar that liability was clearly established in the SCA rulings before the October judgment.
Avvakoumide also challenged Masuku’s assertion that Millar had erred in taking into account liability, stating that it would have been "unconstitutional" for Millar to consider liability beyond Zuma, as it was beyond his scope.
"So to say that this court should have now veered into what is just and equitable, that would amount to unconstitutional considerations by Your Lordship," Avvakoumide said, adding, "The reason simply being that that was ventilated by higher courts, and Your Lordship is bound to that."
Advocate Sean Rosenberg, acting on behalf of the Democratic Alliance (DA), concurred with the State's conclusion that no compelling reasons existed to grant permission to appeal. He argued that Zuma's argument in this appeal was "unsustainable" and "not an arguable proposition at all" because it had been raised in the SCA and the High Court previously.
He said Zuma made his arguments then about whether it was "just and equitable" for Zuma to pay back the money, and the SCA had determined that "it was just an equitable for an order that Zuma be directed to repay the money".
Avvakoumide stated, "There was no debate about whether the state ought to have been held accountable," adding that if Zuma wanted to use this defence, it should have been raised earlier and not after the fact. He also noted that Masuku's arguments were more appropriate for an appeal case rather than a leave to appeal one.
Personal Offence
Masuku took personal offence at some of the language used by Avvakoumide during his arguments, stating that Avvakoumide "makes it a habit of insulting me all the time."
"The first insult, is that I make disingenuous arguments. Disingenuous means dishonest, but he doesn’t show exactly where I’ve made the dishonest argument," Masuku said. He added that the second insult was that "I make emotional submissions about Zuma’s rights."
Earlier, Avvakoumide had concluded that there were no compelling reasons illustrated in Zuma’s argument to grant the permission he sought. He described Masuku’s argument as "an emotional submission that Zuma has rights," adding, "Everyone has rights, but whether those rights are aptly submitted before Your Lordships today – we submit not, respectfully."
Millar indicated that he would deliver a written judgment to the parties, with notification to be provided when it is ready.
Follow Us on Twitter
