On Wednesday, October 22, 2025, the Pretoria High Court handed down a ruling that sent ripples through South Africa’s political landscape: former President Jacob Zuma must repay 28.9 million rand—roughly $1.6 million—to the Office of the State Attorney. The sum, which includes accrued interest, covers years of legal expenses racked up during Zuma’s private court battles, many of which stem from a tangled web of corruption allegations and the controversial use of public funds for his personal defense.
Judge Anthony Millar, presiding over the case, set a strict 60-day deadline for Zuma to settle his debt. Should Zuma fail to pay up, the state attorney has the green light to seize his assets—including his presidential pension benefits. It’s a dramatic turn for the 83-year-old ex-leader, who once commanded the nation from 2009 to 2018 but now faces mounting legal and financial woes.
This latest decision follows years of wrangling over who should foot the bill for Zuma’s protracted legal battles. According to AP News, Zuma’s legal fees were initially paid out of state coffers, a move that drew fierce criticism and legal challenges. In December 2018, the Gauteng High Court ruled that taxpayers should not bear the cost of Zuma’s private legal representation. The Supreme Court of Appeal reaffirmed this stance in April 2021, making it clear that Zuma was personally responsible for the expenses.
Interest on a hefty portion of the debt—about 18.9 million rand, or $1 million—has been piling up since January 25, 2024, and will continue to do so until the debt is fully paid. Court documents reviewed by AP News and other outlets confirm that the sum is non-negotiable, and the consequences for non-payment are severe.
Zuma’s legal troubles are nothing new to South Africans. His presidency was marred by a series of corruption scandals and allegations of state capture—a term used to describe the undue influence of private interests over government decision-making. The most infamous of these controversies centers on a 1999 arms deal with a French defense company, which allegedly involved bribery, fraud, and money laundering. Zuma, who held significant political power at the time, has consistently denied any wrongdoing, yet the charges have dogged him for decades.
In 2021, Zuma’s defiance of the judiciary landed him in hot water yet again. He served two months in prison for contempt of court after refusing to testify at an official inquiry probing corruption during his time in office. The episode underscored the former president’s fraught relationship with South Africa’s legal system and fueled public debate about accountability for those in power.
But the courtroom drama didn’t end there. Zuma’s political fortunes took another hit in 2024 when he was expelled from the African National Congress (ANC), the party that had been his political home for decades. The expulsion came after Zuma launched a new political movement, the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP), named after the ANC’s former armed wing. The MKP contested South Africa’s national elections, signaling Zuma’s refusal to fade quietly into the background.
Following the Pretoria High Court’s ruling, the MKP released a statement indicating that Zuma would “address the nation” on Thursday, October 23, 2025. Details of the upcoming address remain scarce, but political observers are keenly watching for Zuma’s response to the latest legal setback and what it might mean for his party’s future. The timing couldn’t be more critical, as the MKP seeks to establish itself as a credible force in South African politics amid ongoing questions about its founder’s legal and ethical standing.
The saga of Zuma’s legal fees has become a touchstone for broader debates about corruption, governance, and the rule of law in South Africa. Many citizens have long expressed frustration over the use of public funds to defend politicians accused of serious crimes. The courts’ insistence that Zuma repay the money is seen by some as a necessary assertion of accountability. As AP News notes, the court’s decisions over the past several years have made it clear that “taxpayers should not shoulder the cost of his private litigation.”
Yet, Zuma’s supporters argue that the legal campaign against him is politically motivated, aimed at sidelining a populist leader who retains significant grassroots support. The MKP has positioned itself as a champion of the marginalized and has sought to frame Zuma’s legal battles as part of a broader struggle against what it describes as an entrenched political elite.
Meanwhile, the ANC—once Zuma’s political home—has distanced itself from its former leader, citing the need to uphold ethical standards and restore public trust. The party’s leadership has repeatedly emphasized that no one is above the law, a message that resonates with many South Africans weary of corruption scandals and economic stagnation.
For Zuma, the financial implications of the court order are substantial. The potential seizure of his assets, including his presidential pension, would mark a dramatic reversal of fortune for a man who once held the highest office in the land. It’s a stark reminder that the legal system can—and sometimes does—catch up with even the most powerful figures.
At the same time, the episode highlights the enduring challenges facing South Africa’s democracy. The country continues to grapple with the legacy of state capture and the corrosive effects of corruption on public institutions. The courts’ willingness to hold powerful individuals to account is seen by many as a positive step, but the road to full accountability remains long and uncertain.
As the 60-day deadline ticks down, all eyes are on Jacob Zuma and the choices he’ll make in the coming weeks. Will he comply with the court’s order and repay the money? Or will he challenge the ruling, risking the loss of his assets and further legal entanglements? South Africans, weary but watchful, await his next move.
Ultimately, the Pretoria High Court’s decision is more than a legal ruling—it’s a test of South Africa’s commitment to justice and the principle that no one, no matter how powerful, is above the law. The outcome will shape not only Zuma’s legacy but also the nation’s ongoing struggle to build a more transparent and accountable democracy.