Former President Jacob Zuma insists that there is nothing untoward about the state funding his criminal case.
On Tuesday, Zuma’s legal team will appeal the December 2018 High Court order which set aside the state’s decision to pay for the former president’s legal costs.
The Democratic Alliance and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) have filed papers in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Bloemfontein against Zuma regarding the issue. The former president has argued that charges against him were prompted by political vengeance and acrimony.
In papers before the SCA, Zuma contends that the charges were levelled in his capacity as a public office-bearer and that it is unfair and discriminatory to withhold state funds for his legal battle.
The criminal charges against him include racketeering, corruption, money laundering and fraud. They emanate from the country’s arms deal in the 1990s.
Zuma is alleged to have received bribes in return for providing political protection to one of the winning bidders, French company Thales.
The criminal case has now cost the state more than R16 million.
Zuma has taken issue with the delay of the DA and EFF in initiating the review application.
He argues that the EFF’s High Court application was not brought within a reasonable time:
The former president submits that EFF leader, Julius Malema, should have known about the decision to fund private legal costs from at least 2008 and that although the EFF was founded in 2013, the party could have questioned the decision soon after.
EFF’s response
The EFF on the other hand accuses Zuma of having manipulated the system.
“The former president actually relies on Section 3 of the Attorneys’ Act which allows him to be assisted with legal costs like any other state employee where they incurred those costs while in office. So the court ruled that he should pay his costs.
Now what the court here will look at, is what are the provisions of Section 3 which clearly states that a person should be covered with the costs,” says legal expert, Sekonyela Moeketsi.
The High Court declared that the state was not liable for the legal costs incurred by Zuma in his criminal prosecution. The court also set aside the decision by the Presidency and the State Attorney for the state to cover those costs.
“There’s legal basis for the opposition of request by Zuma to have his legal costs funded by the state and there are quite solid grounds in opposing that move and I’m of the view that the court will pronounce in favour of the opposition DA and EFF in this matter,” says legal expert Machini Motloung.
Meanwhile, Zuma has denied using stalling tactics to avoid criminal prosecution.
