Taxpayers are not just funding the more than half a billion rand operations of the Zondo inquiry, they are also paying the legal fees of some witnesses and implicated officials, including former president Jacob Zuma.
In almost all of these cases, there is no guarantee that the office-bearers will be required to pay back the money if they are found by the state capture inquiry to have acted outside the scope of their official duties.
The inquiry, which was set up to investigate the abuse of procurement by government departments and state-owned enterprises for personal benefit, has so far largely heard evidence focusing on the Gupta family, who have close links with Zuma and his son Duduzane; facilities management company Bosasa and the Watson family; and Eskom.
It has also heard evidence on Zuma’s attempts to push through a nuclear deal that the government could not afford.
The state attorney’s office has confirmed that the government was funding the legal costs of former public enterprises minister Lynne Brown; former prosecutions head Shaun Abrahams; labour minister Mildred Oliphant; public enterprises minister Pravin Gordhan; and Lakela Kaunda, Zuma’s former personal assistant.
It is still processing multiple other applications for funding from unnamed "former and current office-bearers".
All of these officials, except Gordhan, have been notified that they were implicated by testimony in the inquiry.
"The legal assistance granted to all the public office-bearers was granted on the premise that they acted within the course and scope of their employment in executing state functions," state attorney Isaac Chowe wrote in a letter to the DA.
Crucially, Chowe reveals that the state attorney "in most of the matters" has not been instructed to ask that any of the current or former government officials reimburse the money if they
are found to have acted outside their duties.
DA federal executive chair James Selfe said it was "bizarre and unacceptable" that taxpayers had to foot the legal bills for politicians and officials testifying before the inquiry.
"If they are innocent, there is no need for legal representation. If they have something to hide, they should hire their own lawyers. This could cause extensive delays in the commission concluding its work and rack up billions."
There is, however, a notable exception to this trend — Zuma.
The presidency has confirmed to the DA that it had agreed to pay for a senior and junior advocate to represent Zuma at the inquiry, as well as for the costs of an attorney.
It said this funding was being granted on the condition that "Mr Zuma undertakes to refund the state all costs incurred on his behalf if it is found that he acted in his personal interests or for his personal benefit in the commission of the allegations against him and it is found that he forfeited state cover".
Zuma has thus far chosen not to give any response to the evidence presented, so his legal costs are understood to be very low. That may change if, and when, he decides to testify.
The high court in Pretoria in 2018 ruled that Zuma was not entitled to continued legal funding of his corruption trial defence by the state and needed to repay the nearly R16m already spent on those costs. Zuma is currently seeking to challenge that decision at the Supreme Court of Appeal.
He is also trying to challenge another high court ruling that forces him to pay about R10m in legal costs spent on his fruitless battle to block the release of, and later overturn, then public protector Thuli Madonsela’s State of Capture report.
The Zondo commission was set up as a result of this report, which largely focused on corruption at Eskom but requested a broader investigation into undue influence in
state spending.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.