NATIONAL NEWS - President Cyril Ramaphosa says the rationale for the State covering his predecessor’s legal costs was that the alleged crimes he committed took place while he was in the employ of government.
Ramaphosa issued a statement in response to questions posed by Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema last week as to the legal provision the state relied on when it decided to fund Zuma’s personal legal costs in his lengthy battle to stave off the reinstatement of corruption charges.
In a written response to Malema, Ramaphosa said: “I was informed that the State Attorney, at the time of considering the request made by President Zuma for legal representation at State expense, considered section 3(3) of the State Attorney Act, 1957 (as amended) to give her discretion where the State was not party to a matter but interested or concerned in it, or it was in the public interest to provide such representation to a government official.
“The acts on the basis of which it is alleged that the former President committed criminal offences took place during his tenure as a government official both at provincial and later at national level.”
The president added that the department of justice considered section 12.2.2 of the Treasury Regulations which were applicable at the time and determined that there would be an obligation to refund the state if any loss was found to be incurred when an official was acting outside the course and scope of his employment.
