Could Zuma lose his properties, including Nkandla, following today’s ruling?

The many troubles of former president Jacob Zuma mounted today following the High Court in Pretoria ruling that his agreement with the presidency on the funding of his legal fees was invalid.

It means Zuma will not only have to fund his own defence on corruption charges and other legal matters from now on, but he is liable to have to repay an estimated R16 million already spent on his defence since he was first linked to corruption in the arms deal in 2005.

An amount of R32 million was calculated by the EFF, while the DA and the presidency have estimated that more than R16 million has already been paid for Zuma by taxpayers.

The court ruled that the state attorney would need to determine what the costs actually are.

According to lawyer Ulrich Roux, speaking to eNCA after the ruling, Zuma will have to repay the money as soon as these costs are determined. If he can’t – and he has already shown signs that his access to funding may be constrained – the EFF and DA will be able to approach the courts to attach his assets, said Roux.

Among those assets are his private family compound at Nkandla, for which he is already in debt to the tune of R17.8 million after the public protector found that many of the “security upgrades” to the property paid for by the state had in fact been improper improvements that needed to be paid for by Zuma.

These included a cattle kraal, amphitheatre, swimming pool, tuck shop and more.

Zuma needed to take a loan from the now liquidated VBS Mutual Bank to repay the R17.8 million, which was what the state decided the upgrades he had benefited from were actually worth.

If the Nkandla property’s value exceeds its liabilities, it may be among the assets that could be attached, though Zuma also owns other properties and assets.

The court found today that the agreement he struck with the presidency more than a decade ago was invalid and the money already spent should be recovered. The fees were incurred as far back as 2006, during Zuma’s criminal prosecution in the spy tapes matter.

Zuma is likely to appeal, and his legal team already indicated they will be doing so.

President Cyril Ramaphosa had earlier already said government would honour whatever the court decides.

The biggest costs may still be ahead

Zuma’s application for a permanent stay of prosecution for his corruption trial is set to be heard over three days from May 20 next year.

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the defence teams of both Zuma and French arms manufacturer Thales settled on May 20 to argue whether the high-stakes fraud and corruption trial should finally begin.

The trial is linked to the controversial R60 billion defence force arms deal concluded in 1999, which saw several multinational companies around the world providing technology and equipment.

It is alleged that Thales paid bribes to Zuma — via Zuma’s then financial adviser Schabir Shaik — in order to protect the company from a probe into the arms deal, in which Thales had secured a lucrative R2.6 billion contract to supply combat systems for the South African navy.

It is claimed that Thales paid Zuma — who was deputy president of the country at the time — R500,000 a year for political cover.

Zuma and Thales have asked the court to stop the prosecution and filed their written representations for a stay of prosecution earlier this month.

In Zuma’s affidavit, he said his prosecution had “all the attributes of a case that should be stayed permanently”.

“The delays have been extremely long, the pretrial irregularities glaring, the prejudice to me is blatant, there are no victims or complainants and the political interference in the prosecution passes as other circumstances or factors the court should take into account,” said the affidavit.

In the affidavit submitted by Thales, company lawyer Christine Guerrier said the decision to reinstate the charges against the company was “unlawful” and that Thales’ “rights to a fair trial have been violated”.

The company cited the long delay as an overriding factor and that the “employees involved in the events underpinning the charges are not available to provide [the company] with instructions … to assist [Thales] in presenting its defence at trial”.

Zuma is accused number one and is facing one count of racketeering; two counts of corruption, one count of money laundering and 12 counts of fraud for allegedly receiving bribe money from Thales via Shaik.

Thales is accused number two and is facing one count of racketeering; two counts of corruption and one count of money laundering.

Last year the Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed a High Court decision that former NPA head Mokotedi Mpshe had erred when he decided to drop the same corruption charges against Zuma in 2009.

The trial is likely to be long, and it will undoubtedly become far more costly than it has already been.

Additional reporting, ANA

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.