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.

“For this reason, the State Attorney decided that it was appropriate to grant the request of the former President, subject to the condition that he make an undertaking (which he did) to refund monies thus spent should it be found that he acted in his personal capacity and own interest in the commission of the alleged offences.”

Ramaphosa was grilled last week in the National Assembly by the opposition about the burden of Zuma’s legal costs to the country.

He confirmed that Zuma had spent R15.3 million battling the Democratic Alliance’s successful bid to overturn the 2009 decision not to prosecute him which in the end was found to be irrational and was set aside.

Malema alleged that the true amount was more than R64 million, but Ramaphosa said he was not aware of that sum.

– African News Agency (ANA)

For more news your way, follow The Citizen on Facebook and Twitter.