- Jacob Zuma must personally repay R28,960,774.34 to the State for legal costs unlawfully covered in his criminal defence.
- The court confirmed that interest is owed and allowed asset execution, including pension, if payment is not made within 60 days.
- The DA’s counterapplication succeeded, securing oversight and costs; the State was denied punitive costs due to delays.
In a firm ruling delivered on 22 October 2025, the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria ordered Jacob Zuma to repay nearly R29 million in legal costs that the State unlawfully paid for his personal criminal defence. Judge A Millar made it clear that Zuma, not the State Attorney, was liable.
“There is simply no other rational interpretation than that it was intended that Mr Zuma personally be ordered to repay,” the judgment stated, rejecting Zuma’s argument that the repayment order was vague or misdirected.
The court referred to earlier judgments by the Full Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, both of which found the State’s payments invalid. The Full Court had previously ruled that Zuma’s use of public funds for private legal defence violated the rule of law and accountability principles. It held that repayment was essential to uphold the rule of law and enforce public accountability.
Zuma’s legal team argued that he didn’t receive the money directly and that the State Attorney should be blamed instead. But the court rejected this, stating that Zuma was the one who benefited from the legal services and must now repay.
The Democratic Alliance, a party in the original case, successfully applied for additional relief. The court granted interest on the disbursed amounts, divided into two periods: R18.2 million from 22 October 2021 to 24 January 2024, and the full R28.9 million from 25 January 2024 until full payment.
“Mora interest runs because Mr Zuma deprived the State of the productive use of the money and thereby caused it loss,” Judge Millar explained.
If Zuma fails to pay within 60 days, the State Attorney can execute against his assets, including his presidential pension. The court noted that Zuma’s pension is not a pension as defined in the Pension Funds Act and is therefore not protected by that Act.
Oversight and costs
The DA also secured a supervisory order requiring the State Attorney to report every three months on recovery efforts. The DA may respond and apply for further relief if needed. The court stated that this kind of oversight guarantees commitment to accountability, responsiveness, and openness.
Zuma was ordered to pay the legal costs of both the State and the DA, including the use of two counsels. However, the court denied the State’s request for punitive costs, citing its own delay in pursuing the claim. “To order this would be to endorse the failure on the part of the applicants to explain their tardiness in complying with the order of the Full Court,” Judge Millar concluded.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
