Zuma Foundation criticizes Constitutional Court's dismissal of R29m legal fees appeal

The Constitutional Court issued its order on November 12, refusing Zuma leave to appeal with costs in the matter of Zuma vs Presidency of the Republic of South Africa and Others. The case concerns the recovery of R28,960,774 in legal costs paid by the state towards Zuma's private legal battles. The Jacob Zuma Foundation noted the court's order and disputed its finding that its jurisdiction had not been engaged.

The foundation argued that the Constitutional Court failed to adequately explain why the constitutional questions raised in Zuma's application did not warrant its intervention. In December 2018, the high court in Pretoria declared invalid and set aside the decision of the Presidency and the state attorney to fund president Zuma's legal costs. That arrangement was concluded in 2006, under former president Thabo Mbeki, and continued under later administrations.

The foundation maintained that Zuma had not personally authorised the payments or made the decision to fund his legal expenses. The court found the state's decision unlawful, but made no finding that president Zuma was responsible for that decision. The foundation argued that the appeal raised a constitutional question about whether an individual should personally repay money when the unlawful decision to spend it was made by the state.

The appeal questioned whether it was just and equitable to order a person to repay the full amount personally when the state took the unlawful decision. The foundation noted that the court had granted condonation, finding that the delay in bringing the application was minimal and the explanation adequate. However, it questioned why the court subsequently dismissed the application without explaining why the section 172(1)(b) question was not constitutional or not of public importance.

The legal battle over Zuma's legal fees dates back several years and centres on payments made by the state towards his defence in criminal proceedings and related litigation, largely linked to the corruption charges arising from the 1999 arms deal. The payments were made between 2005 and 2019, after an arrangement was concluded in 2006 under Mbeki's administration. In December 2018, the Pretoria high court declared the arrangement unlawful and ordered that the state recover the money.

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld that ruling in 2021. In October 2025, the Pretoria high court ordered Zuma personally to repay R28,960,774, together with interest. Zuma's subsequent application for leave to appeal against the repayment order was dismissed by the high court in December 2025. He then approached the Constitutional Court, but his application was dismissed.

The DA, which has been involved in the litigation seeking the recovery of the money, opposed Zuma's latest attempt to challenge the repayment order. The EFF also played a role in the earlier litigation that resulted in the 2018 ruling. The repayment order gave Zuma 60 days to settle the debt, and the state attorney was authorised to pursue enforcement measures if he failed to do so.

Key points

• The Constitutional Court dismissed Zuma's application for leave to appeal an order compelling him to repay almost R29m in state-funded legal fees.
• The Jacob Zuma Foundation disputed the court's finding that its jurisdiction had not been engaged.
• The legal battle over Zuma's legal fees dates back several years and centres on payments made by the state towards his defence in criminal proceedings and related litigation.