South Africa’s militant opposition Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) said on Wednesday that former president Jacob Zuma — not the state — should pay for his multimillion-dollar legal costs incurred in a 1990s military arms procurement criminal trial while he was in office, APA learnt on Wednesday.
Zuma has complained to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), challenging a December 2018 High Court judgment that he should personally settle legal bills in the state arms procurement scandal that he accumulated while holding the presidency – and not the state – as Zuma contends.
In its ruling, the High Court had ordered the setting aside of the state’s decision to fund Zuma’s defence in a criminal trial amounting to an estimated US$2.1 million.
The state made the decision to pay for these legal costs while Zuma was head of state, observers noted, leading the opposition EFF to question this as a clear case of conflict of interest at the SCA hearing.
EFF lawyer Thembeka Ngcukaitobi told the SCA on Wednesday that the decision by the state to fund Zuma’s criminal case was shrouded in secrecy.
This made it difficult to determine the actual amount of money that was spent from 2005 to date in the arms deal trial which has not ended, the lawyer said.
Ngcukaitobi rejected the assertion by Zuma’s legal team that their review application to set aside Zuma’s legal funding by the state was unreasonably delayed.
“There was a change in governance when the current president arrived. There was a greater level of transparency in terms of disclosing the actual detail around the funding of Zuma’s legal costs.
“What we’ve now come to know is that it (the amount of the legal costs) is much deeper than anyone could have thought,” Ngcukaitobi argued in court.
The former president is arguing that charges levelled against him were politically motivated and, therefore, had no basis in a court of law.
Zuma’s defence lawyer Thabani Masuku said opposition parties failed to exercise their parliamentary oversight duties as the state funding matter was already in the public domain.
But they (parties) never acted against this while Zuma was in office, Masuku argued.
Hearing of the case continues.
NM/jn/APA