Zuma faces 60-day deadline to repay state funds unlawfully used for legal costs
If the former president fails to pay the state within the deadline, the State Attorney has the go-ahead to attach and sell his assets, including his movable and immovable property, as well as his presidential pension.
The Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria has given former President Jacob Zuma 60 days to repay nearly R29-million, plus interest, in state money that was unlawfully used to pay his legal fees and related expenses.
According to the Democratic Alliance, this is a victory for South Africa and for taxpayers:
“In every way possible, the DA continues to fight for the rule of law, protection of taxpayer money, and the rooting out of State Capture,” said national spokesperson Willie Aucamp.
Judge Anthony Millar ruled on Wednesday, 22 October 2025, that “the State Attorney is directed to have a writ of execution issued by the Registrar of this Court for the attachment and sale in execution of immovable and/or movable and/or incorporeal property of the first respondent, to satisfy the judgment debt, including his presidential pension benefit, or portion thereof”.
Zuma is expected to address members of the media in Durban on Thursday, 23 October 2025 on several “political developments” and possibly outline his next steps, including whether he will take the fight further.
The judgment relates to an application by the state, supported by the Democratic Alliance and Economic Freedom Fighters, which sought to have the uMkhonto weSizwe party leader repay all the money used by the state towards his criminal prosecution and ancillary litigation instituted against him in his personal capacity.
The judgment follows a 2018 high court decision that found the funding of Zuma’s legal costs was unlawful.
In that ruling, Deputy Judge President Audrey Ledwaba overturned a 2006 agreement signed by Zuma and former president Thabo Mbeki stating the government would pay Zuma’s legal fees in his protracted 1999 Arms Deal and other cases instituted against him in his personal capacity.
Zuma appealed against the judgment in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), which essentially upheld the same decision, ruling that the payments had indeed been unlawful and required the state to recover them.
Zuma’s legal team had, however, raised multiple defences, but Judge Millar said none were relevant because the matter was about implementing an existing court order, not re-arguing it.
The high court did consider Zuma’s main defence, being that the 2018 SCA order directing the state to “recover” funds did not expressly say he personally had to pay them, and that the state should instead pursue “constitutional delinquents” – the officials in the State Attorney’s office who had authorised the unlawful payments.
Zuma’s lawyers said he had “received no direct financial benefit by way of a payment” from the state and therefore should not be held personally liable.
They also argued that, if repayment was due, it should happen only after the state had first sought recourse against those officials.
Millar, however, rejected this argument, saying the 2018 and 2021 judgments were explicit and binding, and the repayment obligation lay squarely with Zuma personally.
“There is… simply no other rational interpretation that can be ascribed to the order in question other than that it was intended that Mr Zuma personally will be ordered to repay the R28,960,774.34,” Millar said.
In addition to paying the amount, the DA also sought an order for interest and supervisory relief to ensure repayment was enforced. Neither Zuma nor the state opposed these additional requests. Millar granted the interest order, saying that it compensated the state for being deprived of its money due to the delay.
The court has also ordered that Zuma must pay the DA and state attorney’s legal costs, including the fees of two counsel each.
However, the court refused to grant punitive costs, saying that the state itself had delayed bringing this application:
“It would be inapposite to order Mr Zuma to pay punitive costs… to endorse the failure on the part of the applicants to explain their tardiness in complying with the order of the Full Court,” Millar said.
To ensure accountability and compliance, the judge has also issued a structural interdict that places the recovery process under ongoing court supervision.
This means the State Attorney is required to submit a report every three months detailing the steps taken to recover the money, the actions still planned, and the amounts recovered to date.
“We look forward to seeing Mr Zuma repay what he owes South Africa, starting with this first amount of R28.9-million plus interest thereon. A report must be furnished to the court on the progress of the recovery, so that South Africans are kept abreast thereof,” the DA’s Aucamp said.
[Source: Daily Maverick]
