Pretoria – Former President Jacob Zuma's attempt to appeal a previous court order demanding he repay R28.9 million in taxpayer funds used for his corruption trial defence has been rejected by Gauteng High Court Judge Anthony Millar. The funds, with added interest, were initially provided by the state to cover Zuma's legal expenses, but the court has consistently ruled that Zuma is liable for their reimbursement.
In his ruling delivered in Pretoria on Thursday, Judge Millar emphasised the importance of equality before the law and the need to conserve limited court resources. He stated that allowing Zuma to continually appeal the judgment would serve no legitimate purpose but would instead drain judicial resources and reinforce the perception that accountability can be deferred by those with the means to do so.
Millar stated: “To keep the doors of the court open indefinitely to a litigant who refuses to accept the judgment on a particular matter serves no legitimate purpose. All it does is serve to be a drain on scarce judicial resources and to strengthen the view that accountability can be deferred for so long as one has the means to do so."
He added: “It is destructive of the notion that all are equal before the law and confirmatory of the view that ‘there is far too much law for those who can afford it and far too little for those who cannot’."
Zuma's legal team had argued that Judge Millar "lacked empathy and Constitutional sensitivity" when he initially ordered that, should Zuma fail to repay the debt within 60 days, the State Attorney could seize his pension and assets.
In response, Millar clarified that Zuma was essentially asking the court to overrule both the full court and the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) based on "empathy" and "constitutional sensitivity."
Zuma's lawyers also contended that a 2021 SCA ruling, which determined that the state funding was unlawful and should be recovered, did not explicitly state that Zuma himself was liable for the money.
Millar dismissed this argument, stating: “The passages quoted in the judgment of 22 October 2025 from the judgments of both courts, fortify this view. Since this court is bound by the decisions of both the full court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, and there is no basis to distinguish or depart from what they found, this ground of appeal has no merit”.
Finally, Judge Millar rejected Zuma's argument that he had failed to "make a just and equitable order with regards to Mr Zuma." Zuma's team claimed that the former president was a victim of state "delinquency" because government officials had unlawfully approved the state funding of his legal fees.
“This ground is entirely self-serving and meritless,” the judge concluded.
Follow Us on Twitter
