Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma v Democratic Alliance and Economic Freedom Fighters

Jacob Zuma sought and received state funding for his private legal representation in criminal prosecutions and related litigation arising from corruption charges linked to his conduct while holding public office. Relying on decisions purportedly taken under s 3 of the State Attorney Act 56 of 1957, the Presidency and State Attorney paid approximately R15.3 million to a private law firm (Hulley Inc) for Zuma’s defence. The Democratic Alliance (DA) and Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) brought review applications challenging the lawfulness of these decisions and payments, contending that the State Attorney Act did not authorise the funding of a private individual’s legal costs and that the payments violated the principle of legality. The Gauteng Division of the High Court set aside the decisions and ordered recovery of the funds. Zuma appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel, on the attorney-and-client scale. The High Court’s order setting aside the funding decisions and directing recovery of the monies paid was confirmed.

This case affirms the constitutional principle of legality in the context of public expenditure and clarifies that the State Attorney Act does not authorise the State to pay private legal costs of public officials acting in their personal capacity. It underscores accountability for unlawful use of public funds and reinforces judicial intolerance of conduct that undermines the integrity of the courts.