Former social development minister Bathabile Dlamini has been ordered by the Constitutional Court on Thursday to pay only 20% of the legal costs out of her own pocket for her involvement in the social grants crisis.

The remaining 80% of the legal costs, which have been estimated to run into millions, will be footed by the Department of Social Development and South African Social Security Agency (Sassa). In other words, taxpayers will be saddled with paying legal costs.

In a unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Johan Froneman, the apex court found that it would be “novel” to hold cabinet members personally for legal costs. Thus, in Dlamini’s case, it would be appropriate if she pays only 20% of the legal cost from her own pocket.

Courts have generally made legal cost orders against public officials and their offices, resulting in taxpayers having to foot the bill for the legal matters they lose.

Civil rights groups the Black Sash and Freedom Under Law were pushing for Dlamini to pay the legal costs personally as she acted “unreasonably and negligently” in handling social grants, which nearly put the livelihoods of more than 10 million beneficiaries in jeopardy.

Read: Sassa’s legal costs: D-Day for Bathabile Dlamini

This led to Sassa frequently approaching the court at the 11th hour to ask for an extension of the invalid contract of Cash Paymaster Services (CPS) to administer the payments of social grants.

The court was again forced to extend CPS’s contract for the six months to the end of September 2018 – to ensure that 2.5 million elderly and disabled beneficiaries would receive their grant payments – because Sassa had failed to find another service provider.

Although the apex court didn’t slap Dlamini – now minister of women in the presidency – with full legal costs, she might face charges and prosecution for perjury.

A Section 38 Inquiry ordered by the Constitutional Court and chaired by retired Judge Bernard Ngoepe into her role in the 2017 social grants crisis concluded in its report that Dlamini “lied under oath”. In being quizzed about the controversial workstreams that Dlamini appointed to help Sassa takeover social grant payments, Ngoepe found that she was evasive and “less than satisfactory witness”.

Justice Froneman ordered that a copy of judge Ngoepe’s report should be submitted to the National Director of Public Prosecutions to determine whether to prosecute Dlamini for perjury.