Publication: Cape Argus Issued: Date: 2008-03-10 Reporter: Karyn Maughan Reporter: Tania Broughton

Pay Up or I'll sue - Zuma

 

Publication 

Cape Argus
Date

2008-03-10
Reporter Karyn Maughan
Tania Broughton

Web Link

www.capeargus.co.za


Jacob Zuma has threatened the Presidency with legal action for the state's "nonsensical" reluctance to continue paying for his corruption trial defence.

But the state attorney's office is adamant that the Presidency will not undertake to pay Zuma's future legal costs, until he provides a detailed account of how he spent the R9-million in legal funding he previously received from the state.

Aletta Mosidi, head of the state attorney's office in Pretoria, told The Star: "We have to be accountable to the Treasury and the Auditor-General about how taxpayers' money was spent.

"It is not that we are not prepared to pay Mr Zuma's legal costs, but we can't do so without a definite idea of how we are being charged and what we are using state money to pay for.

"At the moment we can't even budget for what amount may be claimed from us."

Mosidi confirmed that she had recently received a letter from Zuma's attorney, Michael Hulley, threatening legal action over the state's failure to reinstate its undertaking to pay part of the ANC president's legal costs.

"But the ball is in Mr Hulley's court ... it is only when we receive an itemised bill from him that this issue can be resolved," she said.

Earlier, presidential spokesperson Mukoni Ratshitanga said the Presidency had not received any notification of any legal action related to Zuma's fees.

"Only the state attorney can comment on whatever dispute currently exists," he said.

Hulley declined the opportunity to comment on Zuma's legal fees dispute.

His objection to producing an itemised bill is, however, understood to centre on the fact that the Presidency previously disputed the R9-million claimed by Zuma in 2006 and called in respected senior counsel, Malcolm Wallace, to evaluate it.

Wallace found that the amount - claimed solely for Zuma's defence in the state's aborted corruption case against him - was fair and equitable.

At the time, presidential spokesperson Themba Maseko issued a statement claiming that the delay in finalising Zuma's legal funding was "a result of protracted negotiations on the extent of the commitment and criteria for payment".

"These matters have since been resolved and the Presidency has made a contingency provision for an amount of R10-million in its budget to cover this risk," he said.

Several months later, the state attorney's office paid Zuma's bill from the justice department's budget with the understanding that the Presidency would reimburse the money it had spent.

The Presidency is responsible for the payment of Zuma's corruption case fees, because he was accused of committing certain corrupt acts while in office as deputy president.

But the arrangement seemingly went awry when the Presidency indicated that it would only reimburse the justice department after it received a detailed breakdown of exactly how the R9-million was spent.

As no such bill has been forthcoming, the Presidency has yet to pay the money back.

"We are sitting with that debt and no one is coming back to us," Mosidi said. "It has created huge difficulties."

Zuma and French arms company Thint, his co-accused in the upcoming trial, will tomorrow and Wednesday try to persuade the Constitutional Court to give them a last shot at having raids conducted on their offices declared unlawful.

More than 93 000 documents were seized in the Scorpions raids, many forming the basis for the fresh indictment served on Zuma.

* This article was originally published on page 1 of The Star on March 10, 2008
 
Related Articles

With acknowledgements to Karyn Maughan, Tania Broughton and Cape Argus.