Staff Reporter
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has dismissed with costs an appeal by former president Jacob Zuma against a judgment of the North Gauteng High Court, which previously ruled that the state is not liable for legal costs that he incurred in his personal capacity.
This means Zuma might now have to pay back to the state about R25 million for his legal fees.
The case dates back to 2006 when his then legal team, Hulley Inc, asked the state attorney, on behalf of Zuma, for legal assistance in his criminal cases in which he faced two counts of corruption.
Zuma wanted Hulley Inc and four specified counsel to conduct the case on his behalf with the state footing the legal bill.
A similar request was also made in 2008.
He had now been indicted on the two counts of corruption as well as 12 of fraud and one each of racketeering, money laundering and tax evasion.
The two requests for state support each included an undertaking to refund the state should the court find that he acted in his personal capacity and own interest.
The High Court eventually found that the state was not liable for those costs and ordered Zuma to pay back the money.
Zuma appealed that ruling, but that appeal was opposed in court by the opposition DA and EFF.
The SCA, in its ruling, took the view that granting Zuma’s request was egregious as it was tantamount to giving him a blank cheque to pay his private lawyers.
It said a web of maladministration appears to have made that possible.
Many of the payments, according to the SCA, had no asserted legal basis.
It said the paying of Zuma’s legal fees by the state had a substantial effect on its resources as it was unplanned and could continue to occur.
Among his arguments, Zuma wanted the opposition to his application by the DA and the EFF thrown out as they had filed their papers late.
He further contended that even if the payment of his legal fees by the state was unlawful, the payments should continue because the DA and the EFF waited too long to take the matter on review.
The SCA said it found this “breathtakingly audacious”.
In his petition to the SCA, Zuma alleged that the High Court:
- “essentially (gave) more weight to the political interests of the political parties involved than advancing [his] constitutional rights”;
- would have made different findings if it had been acting “fairly and without bias”;
- in having accepted the submission that he should approach the Legal Aid Board if he could not afford private representation, demonstrated “further evidence of bias”;
- was “hell-bent on finding against (him) on any point possible; and”
- has become accustomed to its trend of punishing me with costs all the time”.
The SCA however pointed out there was no basis for Zuma’s assertions.
It said no factual foundation had been laid for any of the allegations he raised which scandalised the courts.
The Bloemfontein-based court said there was nothing on the record to sustain the inference that the presiding judges in this particular matter or any other case involving Zuma were biased or that they were not open-minded, impartial or fair.
The allegations, said the SCA, were made with a reckless disregard for the truth.
The court said even after being asked by the EFF to withdraw the remarks, this did not happen.