Zuma slammed for suggesting deceased lawyer liable for legal bill

Former president Jacob Zuma has been slammed for suggesting that his late corruption trial advocate was liable for the R28.9 million legal bill state officials have been ordered to recover from him.

The State Attorney and Presidency in January launched legal action to compel Zuma to repay the nearly R29 million spent on his legal fees.

This legal action came two years after the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ordered the State Attorney to “take all necessary steps, including the institution of civil proceedings, to recover the amounts paid by the state for Zuma’s legal costs”.

‘Bizarre’

In papers filed at the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, State Attorney Isaac Chowe described Zuma’s contention that his late corruption trial advocate Kemp J Kemp be liable for his massive legal bill as “bizarre”.

Chow said Zuma’s legal representative “ought to be castigated for making such allegations on behalf of [Zuma]”, News24 reported.

“There is no order to the effect that legal fees paid to legal representatives must be repaid by the legal representatives themselves,

“I submit that the court should show its displeasure at such baseless allegations which have no legal foundation and do not form part of any remedy known to me under the prevailing circumstances,” Chowe said.

ALSO READ: Zuma to indicate ‘attitude’ over millions owed to govt for his legal defence

Taxpayers money on apartheid officials

Chowe made it clear the State Attorney intended to present specific arguments “on the legal principles about counsel who are obliged to do right by their clients and right by the court”.

In his current efforts to convince the High Court not to order that his assets could be attached to recover the millions in legal fees, Zuma argued the State Attorney’s claim against him was “premature” because the money could only be recovered if and when he was convicted.

Chowe, also slammed Zuma for again raising arguments that were roundly rejected by the Supreme Court of Appel (SCA) including that the State Attorney was being racist because apartheid officials had previously been provided with legal funding and there were no legal efforts to recover that money from them.

According to Zuma, the State Attorney never attempted to recover taxpayer funds spent on apartheid prime minister PW Botha’s defence in his trial for contempt of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, apartheid defence minister Magnus Malan’s trial for the 1987 KwaMakhutha massacre and “Doctor Death” Wouter Basson’s criminal trial.

All those officials were, however, acquitted of the charges against them. And, under the terms of an agreement that Zuma himself also signed, they would typically only be required to repay the funds spent on their legal costs if they were convicted.

Kemp, who acted as Zuma’s advocate during his rape trial and the early part of his arms deal corruption prosecution, reportedly died from Covid-19 complications in January 2021.

ALSO READ: Zuma unsuccessful in bid to change April 2025 arms deal trial date [VIDEO]

Money owed

The amount sought from Zuma is R10 million more than what President Cyril Ramaphosa initially claimed had been spent on his legal costs.

At the time, Chowe clarified that an error had been made in the initial letter of demand sent to Zuma.

“The total amount of R18 261 347.72, which was stated in the letter of demand, was based on the record of payments that could be traced at that stage. After a diligent search and verification of the record of payments was conducted during the preparation of this application, it appeared that further monies were expended on Mr Zuma’s behalf totalling the sum of R10 699 426.62.”

State assistance

In 2006 and 2008, Zuma’s lawyers requested State Attorney assistance with the legal costs of four counsel in his criminal cases. However, the high court later ruled that the state was not liable for the costs, and Zuma must repay the money.

Zuma’s appeal at the SCA was opposed by the Democratic Alliance (DA) and Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF).

The court found this was Zuma’s personal legal battle and he had no right to fund it with taxpayers’ money.

Zuma has always maintained he was innocent and entitled to full state funding of his litigation costs because, he said, he was accused of crimes directly linked to his role in government.

ALSO READ: State attorney wants Zuma to pay back nearly R29m in legal fees