Former South African president Jacob Zuma has been ordered to repay nearly R29 million (approximately $1.7 million) in public funds used to cover his private legal expenses, or risk having his assets seized, following a landmark ruling by the Pretoria High Court on Wednesday.

Judge Anthony Millar ruled that the payments, made during Zuma’s presidency to finance his personal defense in corruption-related cases, were unlawful. The court gave Zuma 60 days to reimburse the state, including through garnishment of his presidential pension, or face writs authorizing the sale of his property.

The decision builds on a 2018 precedent that barred the use of taxpayer money for personal criminal defense. The case was supported by opposition parties including the Democratic Alliance and Economic Freedom Fighters, who argued that Zuma’s legal battles stemmed from personal misconduct, not official duties.

Zuma, 83, now leader of the uMkhonto weSizwe party, has long maintained that the legal costs were justified, describing the charges against him as politically motivated. His legal team condemned the ruling as “persecution” and signaled plans to appeal, citing procedural delays and prior challenges.

The ruling comes amid Zuma’s ongoing corruption trial linked to a decades-old arms deal, where he faces 12 charges alongside co-accused. That case has been postponed until April 2026.

The court’s decision underscores South Africa’s broader post-apartheid push for accountability, as the government seeks to recover billions lost to corruption. According to the Zondo Commission, the country has incurred an estimated R500 billion ($28 billion) in corruption-related losses since 2014.

Zuma’s financial controversies extend beyond legal fees. In 2021, he was ordered to repay R7.8 million for upgrades to his Nkandla homestead—part of a R250 million scandal—much of which remains unpaid. With asset seizure now looming, Zuma’s allies have rallied in support, while fiscal watchdogs warn that failure to enforce such rulings undermines public trust in governance.