The JG Zuma Foundation has expressed its deep disappointment and firm protest against the recent High Court judgment that has once again demonstrated the persistent injustices visited upon President Zuma.
MK Party founder and former president between the years 2009 and 2018 has been embroiled in various litigations, primarily revolving around corruption and allegations of using public funds to evade accountability. While Zuma’s legal fees were initially covered by the State coffers, previous rulings — from the Gauteng High Court in December 2018 and the Supreme Court of Appeal in April 2021 — made it plain that the taxpayer money used for his private representation had to be reimbursed. Court documents show that interest on about 18.9 million rand (about $1 million) is due from January 25, 2024, until the date of payment.
The Pretoria High court ordered Zuma to pay R28.9 million in legal fees accumulated by him. The court also ordered that interest must be paid on this amount, which is expected to run into millions. This is to reimburse the State for the bill it had footed over the years to fund his private lawsuits. Zuma was given 60 days in which to pay the money back. It was also ordered that in the event that Zuma fails to satisfy the judgment debt in the given time, the State Attorney can attach his assets, including his home and a portion of his pension benefit, to foot the bill.
The JZFoundation said in a statement that “In its own findings, the High Court held that the State acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally in relation to the payment of President Zuma’s legal fees. Yet, in a troubling contradiction, the Court proceeded to hold President Zuma personally liable for the consequences of that very unconstitutional conduct.”
They said the Court’s reasoning, President Zuma “benefited” from the State’s unlawful conduct, is fundamentally flawed. There can be no benefit where a citizen is now punished and made to pay for the State’s unconstitutional actions.
“Instead of applying the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) to hold the responsible officials accountable for unauthorised expenditure, the Court excused the State’s unconstitutional conduct and shifted the entire burden onto an innocent party. This approach reflects a concerning lack of balance and a failure to uphold the constitutional principles of fairness and accountability,” they stated.
“Furthermore, the Court failed to exercise its broad constitutional discretion under section 172 of the Constitution, which empowers it to grant orders that are just and equitable when dealing with unconstitutional conduct. By granting the Democratic Alliance (DA) interest and attachment orders, relief previously denied by the Full Court, the Court ignored established jurisprudence and fairness. It Is neither just nor equitable to hold only President Zuma liable for the consequences of the State’s unlawful actions.”
