- Jacob Zuma’s appeal against repaying R28.9 million in taxpayer-funded legal fees was dismissed, reaffirming earlier court decisions.
- Judge Millar stressed that higher courts had already established liability and that personal consequences do not outweigh the need for corrective action.
- The court condemned endless litigation as a waste of judicial resources and a threat to equality and accountability under the law.
Jacob Zuma’s effort to avoid repaying R28.9 million in taxpayer-funded legal fees has been decisively dismissed.
On 4 December 2025, the Pretoria High Court denied his application for leave to appeal, ruling there was no prospect of success and no compelling reason for the matter to be reconsidered. In his judgment, Judge A Millar emphasised that unlawful state expenditure must be rectified, not excused, reinforcing a core constitutional principle.
The case stems from an October 2025 judgment directing the MK Party leader to repay R28 960 774.34 advanced for his private legal expenses. That order followed previous findings by the Full Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, both of which declared the payments unconstitutional. The October ruling also required interest to be paid and mandated the State Attorney to report on enforcement steps.
Zuma’s arguments against repayment
In his nine-page application, Zuma put forward three arguments. First, he contended that neither the Full Court nor the Supreme Court of Appeal had explicitly ordered him personally to repay the funds, alleging that the omission of the words “Mr Zuma must pay” created a legal loophole.
Second, he claimed the High Court lacked “empathy and constitutional sensitivity” in ordering repayment, arguing that his personal circumstances had not been adequately considered.
Third, Zuma asserted that the order was not “just and equitable,” insisting that state officials who authorised the payments or attorneys who received them should be held accountable first. In essence, he argued that the state’s failures should shield him from personal liability.
Why the court dismissed Zuma’s claims
Judge Millar rejected all three arguments as unfounded. On the first, he stated: “There is simply no rational basis to conclude that because the orders did not explicitly say ‘Mr Zuma, it is you who must pay back the money’ that that was not what was intended.”
On the question of empathy, Judge Millar emphasised that personal circumstances cannot override established legal principles. The Full Court had already applied the “corrective principle,” requiring unlawful expenditure to be reversed. It noted that Zuma “failed to contradict the EFF’s proposed remedy, nor did he explain why he should be entitled to retain the benefit of the unlawful payments.”
Regarding the third argument, Judge Millar characterised Zuma’s plea as “self-serving and meritless,” stating that the central issue was the amount Zuma was liable to repay, not the fairness of repayment itself.
Legal clarity on unlawful payments
The judgment reaffirmed the Constitutional Court’s “corrective principle,” which requires unlawful expenditure to be reversed wherever possible. In Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings v SASSA, the Constitutional Court held that a party has “no right to benefit from an unlawful contract.”
Judge Millar observed that merely declaring the payments unlawful without ordering repayment “would not achieve the remedial objects inherent in the relief which a court should grant in the vindication of the rule of law.”
The dangers of endless litigation
Zuma’s legal team argued that the case was of significant public importance and that the state’s role in authorising the payments warranted further judicial scrutiny. Judge Millar rebuffed this, warning: “To keep the doors of the court open indefinitely to a litigant who refuses to accept the judgment on a particular matter serves no legitimate purpose. All it does is drain scarce judicial resources and strengthen the view that accountability can be deferred for so long as one has the means to do so.”
He added, “Accountability must apply equally. It is destructive of the notion that all are equal before the law and confirmatory of the view that there is far too much law for those who can afford it and far too little for those who cannot.”
Zuma ordered to pay costs
The application was dismissed with costs. The former president is liable for the legal costs of the Presidency, the State Attorney, the Solicitor General, and the Democratic Alliance, including fees for both senior and junior counsel.
Get your news on the go. Clickhereto follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
