First Thing, Daily Maverick's flagship newsletter

Join the 230 000 South Africans who read First Thing newsletter.

We'd like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick

More specifically, we'd like those who can afford to pay to start paying. What it comes down to is whether or not you value Daily Maverick. Think of us in terms of your daily cappuccino from your favourite coffee shop. It costs around R35. That’s R1,050 per month on frothy milk. Don’t get us wrong, we’re almost exclusively fuelled by coffee. BUT maybe R200 of that R1,050 could go to the journalism that’s fighting for the country?

We don’t dictate how much we’d like our readers to contribute. After all, how much you value our work is subjective (and frankly, every amount helps). At R200, you get it back in Uber Eats and ride vouchers every month, but that’s just a suggestion. A little less than a week’s worth of cappuccinos.

We can't survive on hope and our own determination. Our country is going to be considerably worse off if we don’t have a strong, sustainable news media. If you’re rejigging your budgets, and it comes to choosing between frothy milk and Daily Maverick, we hope you might reconsider that cappuccino.

We need your help. And we’re not ashamed to ask for it.

Our mission is to Defend Truth. Join Maverick Insider.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

ConCourt swiftly dismisses Zuma’s ‘State of Capture...

South Africa

Zuma vs Public Protector

ConCourt swiftly dismisses Zuma’s ‘State of Capture’ case, slaps him with huge legal bill

Former president Jacob Zuma had never believed he was above the law or Constitution, his foundation claims. Instead, he had all along 'insisted that he must be treated like every other citizen, and his right to equal protection of the laws must be respected and protected'. Picture: Thuli Dlamini

Jacob Zuma’s ‘fatally flawed’ Constitutional Court case challenging the Public Protector’s ‘State of Capture’ report has been dismissed, and the former president is left with a hefty legal bill thanks to a cost order granted against him.

It took less than five minutes for the Constitutional Court to hear arguments in a case brought by former president Jacob Zuma to review the Public Protector’s “State of Capture” report. 

It took even less time for the judges to dismiss the case and leave Zuma with the legal bill. 

Indications are that Zuma decided he was not going to participate in his own case as early as April when his lawyers sent a curt note to the court saying they had withdrawn. As in the Pietermaritzburg criminal case, no reason was given for the withdrawal.  

“Kindly take notice that Kgoroeadira Mudau Inc hereby withdraws as the Applicant’s attorneys of Record,” the letter said, without giving further details on the reason for the withdrawal.

On Thursday nobody arrived at the ConCourt via Zoom to represent Zuma, which caused the other lawyers in the matter to call for the case to be struck from the roll and for Zuma to pay their legal fees. 

“We are in a strange situation where the applicant (Zuma) for leave to appeal has not complied with any of the court’s directives. No record of appeal has been filed. And in consequence thereof, no heads have been submitted either by the applicant himself and certainly not by the respondents,” said advocate Kameel Premhid representing the Economic Freedom Fighters.

“The court will be aware that we collectively are of the attitude that this application as it stands before the court today is fatally defective and that it should be struck from the roll with costs,” he added.

Premhid requested that the court order Zuma to pay for the cost of two counsel, a sentiment echoed by advocate Michael Bishop representing the Democratic Alliance.

“We align ourselves with the submission made by Mr Premhid. There’s no record; no written argument has been filed. The matter should be struck from the roll with costs,” Bishop said.

Advocate Ofentse Motlhasedi, representing the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution, said “the manner in which the application was brought before the court is defective”, and called for Zuma to pay the legal costs.

Acting Deputy Chief Justice Sisi Khampepe adjourned the case for a few minutes and returned to rule that the case be struck off the roll with costs. The ruling will see Zuma not only having to pay the legal fees for all parties involved in the case, but also the legal fees in the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) cases that he had initially gone to before the ConCourt.

Zuma had initially filed court papers at the ConCourt in November 2020, calling on it to overturn an SCA ruling and cost order against him. He was challenging the validity of the State of Capture report, which effectively created the Zondo Commission of Inquiry into State Capture.

In his founding affidavit, Zuma appealed against the SCA judgment from 30 October 2020, saying Thuli Madonsela had breached the doctrine of separation of power when she instructed the Chief Justice to appoint the judge who would head up the inquiry into State Capture.

“The award of a punitive personal cost order against me was incorrect, given the fact that I was acting as the President who was concerned about the constitutionality of the remedial action. The remedial action effectively took away the constitutional powers vested in the president and gave them to the judiciary. This was a novel point. I submit that I was not reckless or negligent in approaching the courts to settle this point,” Zuma had said in his affidavit at the ConCourt.

In the judgments leading up to this hearing, the courts were scathing in their assessment of Zuma’s conduct.

The High Court found Zuma had a “personal conflict” that presented an “insurmountable obstacle” in that he was implicated in allegations of State Capture.

“The review application was a clear non-starter and the President was seriously reckless in pursuing it as he has done. His conduct falls short of the high standards expressed in Section 195 of the Constitution,” a full bench of the High Court said.

“Taking all the circumstances sketched and the considerations made, we are of the view that the President was ill advised and reckless in launching the challenge against the remedial action of the Public Protector… Our view is that this is a proper case where a personal cost order is justified and should be granted.”

The SCA upheld the personal cost order, saying Zuma was “acting in a personal and not a representative capacity”.

“There is force in this submission, given that in both the review application and these proceedings, Mr Zuma sought to justify the impermissible, rather than accept the error of his challenge. And it cannot conceivably be in the interests of justice to permit Mr Zuma to pursue an appeal against the costs order, in circumstances where the launch of the review application was reckless and motivated by personal interests. His delay in establishing the commission of inquiry into serious allegations of State Capture was prejudicial both to the public and national interest, and subversive of our democratic ethos. For all these reasons, a punitive costs order in this application is justified,” the SCA said.

The estimated legal bill for the initial court case is between R6-million and R10-million and Thursday’s failed bid will see it increase further. DM

Dianne Hawker is a legal journalist and News Editor at Newzroom Afrika.


Comments - share your knowledge and experience

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or sign in if you are already an Insider.

Everybody has an opinion but not everyone has the knowledge and the experience to contribute meaningfully to a discussion. That’s what we want from our members. Help us learn with your expertise and insights on articles that we publish. We encourage different, respectful viewpoints to further our understanding of the world. View our comments policy here.

All Comments 12

  • And jz will just walk away and never be expected to really pay …. as he has been allowed to do for more than two decades. Our judiciary is completely toothless where this anc criminal is involved.

  • The Arch-hypocrite and Liar-in-chief probably forgot which court he was supposed to be in. Come on Duduzile,cough up some Zupya cash and help your old pa out of trouble.

  • “We are in a strange situation where the applicant (Zuma) for leave to appeal has not complied with any of the court’s directives” take off your gloves and throw him into jail for contempt.

  • Outside the ‘small’ issue of costs, is this not a criminal ‘waste’ of judicial process, time and resources, besides bringing it into disrepute ?

    • Which is what Zuma wants, unfortunately. And, of course, he will not pay the costs nor be sanctioned for it by being arrested for contempt.

  • Well, the ConCourt should by now have sent JZ to jail for his refusal to abide by the instruction of the same court to testify before the Zndo Commission. Two years behind bars would serve as a useful reminder that there is more to come for him. We are fast approaching the point where these judgements will become useless unless the courts have thee gumption to send this criminal to jail.

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted