22/10/2025
"The defence's argument that the respondent cannot be held personally liable is fatal and cannot succeed. The legal counsel was for the benefit of Mr. Zuma alone, in his personal capacity and during a criminal trial against him.
In the circumstances, I make the following order:
The first respondent, Mr. Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma, is ordered to make payment to the second applicant, the State Attorney, of the sum of R28 960 774.34 (twenty-eight million nine hundred and sixty thousand seven hundred and seventy-four Rand and thirty-four cents) being in respect of monies advanced for his legal fees and associated expenses."- Judge Anthony Millar.
The North Gauteng High Court sitting in Pretoria has ruled in favour of the South African Presidency, the South African State Attorney's office as well as the office of the Solicitor General of South Africa in a civil case against former president of the republic Jacob Zuma.
The three state bodies took Zuma to court over legal fees paid by the state to covers Zuma's legal expenses during his ongoing 'Arms Deal' criminal case, expenses which the state covered from 2005 to 2018.
In that case, the state foot the bill for Zuma's legal representation on corruption charges he faces along with French arms manufacturer Thales where Zuma is accused of receiving bribes from Thales through an intermediary, a one Shabir Shaik, in return for helping Thales secure a R2.6-billion military contract to provide the South African Defence Force (SANDF) with combat suites for frigates.
Today, Judge A Millar today rejected the defence's argument that Jacob Zuma could not be held personally liable for the legal fees, finding that the fees were for Zuma in his personal capacity notwithstanding that he was Deputy President and President of South Africa proper respectively when the case was first brought against Zuma and Thales and then tried over a lengthy period until when the state ceased to pay Zuma's legal fees in 2018.
Judge Millar also pointed out that the defence argument was baseless in that there is no constitutional and/or legislative provision that the state must cover the legal costs of a deputy president or president to automatically for unlawful actions perpetrated in a personal capacity.
Judge Millar also issued a devastating and merciless order that Zuma had sixty days to settle the debt or risk having his assets seized in lieu of payment;
"In the event that the first respondent, fails to satisfy the judgment debt in this matter within 60 (sixty days of the date of the court’s order, the State Attorney is directed to have a writ of ex*****on issued by the Registrar of this Court for the attachment and sale in ex*****on of immovable and/or movable and/or incorporeal property of the first respondent, to satisfy the judgment debt, including his presidential pension benefit, or portion thereof, if required and subject to an order of court authorizing that such attachment order be issued after satisfying itself that it is just and equitable that the order be issued and that the amount is appropriate."
Legal researcher and analyst Thabo Makaota says that he anticipates that this is not the end of the road and that Zuma is likely to take the ruling on appeal saying;
"Look, Jacob Zuma's affinity for litigation is well known and documented. I therefore anticipate the former president to approach the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) and pray for leave to appeal this ruling where I believe he will argue that leave to appeal must be granted because the rights of a president and the state benefits they enjoy and/or must enjoy are constitutional in nature.
Of course, the ConCourt will likely reject Zuma's leave to appeal the ruling on two critical points I believe;
-That while a deputy president and president proper do enjoy legal representation during their time in office and at the states' financial burden, this legal representation can only be covered by the state when it is necessary for the deputy president or president's ex*****on of their official duties
-The law prescribes that even when a deputy president or president proper has had legal fees paid for by the state, the state itself can pursue the repayment of monies paid if it is found that the deputy president or president proper acted for personal gain and not in the public interest.
So we can clearly see that Zuma's corruption case with Thales was for personal gain and had nothing to do with discharging his duties in his official capacity as deputy president back in 2005 or so and when he took the presidency in 2009.
So approaching the ConCourt will just be a delay tactic", Makaota said.
Follow The Legal SA for more news and updates.