The question of whether former president Jacob Zuma must repay the R28.9 million in taxpayer funds used for his legal defence was brought before the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria on Wednesday.
Judge Anthony Millar presided over arguments from lawyers representing the State Attorney, the Presidency, the Democratic Alliance (DA), and Zuma.
According to News24, the case follows a 2021 ruling by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), which confirmed that Zuma was not entitled to state funding for his corruption trial defence.
The SCA ordered the State Attorney to recover the funds that had already been spent. In January 2024, the State Attorney and the Presidency launched formal proceedings to reclaim the R28.9 million.
The DA is seeking an order that, if Zuma fails to repay the amount, his pension should be attached to recover the funds.
During the hearing, Judge Millar questioned the fairness of this request, asking DA counsel advocate Sean Rosenberg how Zuma, who is in his 80s, would survive financially if his pension were seized.
“How is Mr Zuma going to live? He is elderly, he is in his 80s,” Millar asked.
He added that such an order would “effectively impoverish Mr Zuma,” and noted that no other debtor in the country would be subjected to that kind of penalty.
The judge also pointed out that the earlier court findings showed Zuma had received state funding for his legal defence because of incorrect advice from then-president Thabo Mbeki’s legal team.
Rosenberg responded that it was “not necessary” to pursue the pension attachment at this stage, but maintained that Zuma could not introduce new defences against repayment since the courts had already ruled that the money must be recovered.
Advocate George Avvakoumides, representing the Presidency, argued that Zuma’s defences were “of no moment” because both the High Court and the SCA had already determined his liability.
He said the former president’s failure to dispute the State Attorney’s detailed account of his legal costs showed that the debt was established.
“If we were to entertain these defences, we would be undermining the principle of legality,” Avvakoumides said, stressing that the judgments against Zuma must be respected.
Zuma’s lawyer, advocate Thabani Masuku, argued that the SCA ruling never explicitly stated that Zuma must personally repay the R28.9 million.
He described his client as a “victim” of “reckless and negligent” legal advice provided by state lawyers, saying it was unjust to hold him responsible for decisions made by others.
Masuku contended that those who advised Zuma to rely on state funding should instead be held liable for the costs.
Judge Millar has yet to make a ruling on whether Zuma’s pension can be attached or whether the State must pursue other means of recovering the money.
The matter remains before the High Court.