Former South African President Jacob Zuma has sparked controversy by suggesting that his late advocate, Kemp J. Kemp SC, should bear responsibility for his staggering R28.9 million legal bill. The claim, made in court documents, has been criticized as an effort to deflect accountability for the costs of his extensive legal battles.
Kemp, who passed away in 2020, was a key member of Zuma’s legal team, representing him in high-profile cases, including the corruption trial linked to the infamous arms deal. Zuma argued that the substantial legal fees were a result of decisions and actions by his legal team, implying that the liability should lie with them.
The State Attorney has dismissed Zuma’s claim as baseless and inappropriate. “It is unfounded to attribute liability to a deceased advocate who acted strictly under the instructions of his client,” said a representative. They clarified that Kemp, like any advocate, was fulfilling his professional duty in representing Zuma’s interests.
Legal experts have echoed this stance, emphasizing that advocates are not typically liable for their clients’ legal fees. “The client bears the responsibility for legal costs unless there’s evidence of professional misconduct, which is not evident here,” explained a constitutional law specialist.
The dispute comes as Zuma faces growing demands to repay the R28.9 million in taxpayer funds used to cover his legal expenses. The Constitutional Court previously ruled that the state was not obligated to fund Zuma’s personal legal battles, particularly those unrelated to his presidential duties.
Critics have condemned Zuma’s attempt to shift blame, arguing that it undermines the legal profession and represents an evasion of accountability. On the other hand, some supporters view the legal bill as part of a political campaign against the former president.
The State Attorney has vowed to pursue repayment, maintaining that Zuma must be held accountable for the costs. “The law must apply equally to all, regardless of personal or political circumstances,” they affirmed.
As the legal saga unfolds, the debate over Zuma’s accountability and the broader implications for state-funded legal defenses remains in the spotlight.
