Former President Jacob Zuma’s attempt to evade pay­ing back the state R28.9m, which tax­pay­ers forked out for his per­sonal lit­ig­a­tion, will fail for a third time before the Con­sti­tu­tional Court, State Attor­ney deputy head Isaac Chowe argues.

According to Business Day, Zuma faces attach­ment of his prop­erty and pres­id­en­tial pen­sion should he lose the appeal in the apex court and fail to pay the money as dir­ec­ted by a court order.

The former head of state seeks to appeal against a court order by Judge Anthony Mil­lar of the High Court in Pre­toria.

The order dir­ects Zuma to pay back R28.9m in legal fees. These fees were incurred in his per­sonal crim­inal trial in the arms deal lit­ig­a­tion but were paid by the State Attor­ney dur­ing his time as Pres­id­ent. The Pres­id­ency and the State Attor­ney pro­cured private legal ser­vices for Zuma in the crim­inal case, but in 2018 the Gauteng High Court (Pre­toria) found that fund­ing the costs was unlaw­ful.

Mil­lar, in Octo­ber 2025, ordered Zuma to pay R28m, with interest, when the Pres­id­ency and State Attor­ney brought the mat­ter back to court after final­ising cal­cu­la­tions of how much the state paid in Zuma’s crim­inal and civil lit­ig­a­tions.

Mil­lar ordered that if Zuma fails to pay the money, the State Attor­ney be dir­ec­ted to have a writ of exe­cu­tion for the attach­ment of his prop­erty and his pres­id­en­tial pen­sion bene­fit.

Zuma is fight­ing the order on the basis that the unlaw­ful decision to fund his legal fees was taken by the state, and so he can­not be ordered to pay.

Chowe, rep­res­ent­ing the Pres­id­ency, State Attor­ney and Soli­citor-Gen­eral, argues Zuma has no pro­spects of suc­cess in the appeal after the High Court and the SCA dis­missed his attempts to over­turn the judg­ment.

Business Day reports that the former Pres­id­ent’s appeal is also opposed by the DA.

Zuma chal­lenges the court order, arguing a Full Court, which decided on the mer­its of the case in 2018, did not rule that he ‘per­son­ally’ pay the R28.9m but ordered the State Attor­ney to ‘take all neces­sary steps, includ­ing the insti­tu­tion of civil pro­ceed­ings, to recover the amounts paid by the state for Mr Zuma’s legal costs’. 

Chowe describes Zuma’s legal argu­ments that the High Court did not order he is liable to pay as ‘disin­genu­ous’.

Zuma wants the apex court to set aside the court order dir­ect­ing him to pay; altern­at­ively, the court rules that offi­cials respons­ible for the decision to fund his per­sonal lit­ig­a­tion pay back the money.

The court is yet to hear the mat­ter.

Full Business Day report