After the court found that former president Jacob Zuma had wrongfully spent R28.9 million on his personal legal defence, Zuma was ordered to refund the money. Advocates for accountability have spent years arguing in court about who should pay for Zuma’s massive corruption trial, but this verdict is a huge win.
This Monday, the court handed down its verdict, declaring that the state was not bound by law to pay for Zuma’s private defence and that doing so was an illegal appropriation of public funds. Furthermore, the court ordered that the State Attorney might seize Zuma’s pension and other assets to recoup the money in the event that he does not repay the amount.
This order is the latest development in a protracted judicial battle that began when Zuma was president and the state footed the tab for his ever-increasing legal fees stemming from the contentious arms sale and other corruption and fraud allegations. The decision has been praised by legal experts as a significant precedent that further establishes the notion that public officials should pay for their own criminal defence.
The ruling shows that public funds cannot be used to cover up private corruption, according to one legal expert. The National Treasury and the Presidency are expected to supervise the reimbursement order’s enforcement. In the meanwhile, Zuma’s lawyers have been mum on whether their client plans to file an appeal. If he does not pay up, the State Attorney can take legal action to take his assets or take money out of his presidential pension, making sure the taxpayer gets their money back.