Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla Home “As Good As Gone” After Court SHOCKER — SA Left Gasping!

South Africa thought it had seen every possible Zuma plot twist, but on Monday the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria said, “Wait — hold my gavel.”
Because THIS time, the drama wasn’t about state capture, corruption, spies, tea ladies, or the infamous firepool.

No — this time, Zuma’s entire financial legacy may have just gone up in judicial smoke.

In a ruling that sent tremors straight to Nkandla’s thatched rooftops, the court revisited the explosive question:

Should Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma repay the R28.9 MILLION in taxpayer-funded legal fees he enjoyed for over a decade?

The answer?
Let’s just say Nkandla’s furniture may need to start packing.

Inside the Courtroom: Zuma’s Lawyer Tries to Rewrite History

Advocate Dali Msuku arrived in court ready for battle — and possibly auditioning for a courtroom drama series.

His argument? Simple. Dramatic. Convenient.

The past judgments never explicitly said Zuma himself had to pay back the money.

In other words: “Your Honour… the bill didn’t have his name on it.”

Msuku told Judge Anthony Miller that Zuma was being turned into South Africa’s favorite political scapegoat, unfairly punished because the system that once protected him suddenly grew a backbone.

He insisted:

Zuma never asked for the money
Zuma never demanded the funding
Zuma simply “accepted what the state offered”
Zuma is now a victim of public emotion, not legal logic

A bold strategy — essentially arguing that the former president is being bullied.

Judge Miller Was Not Buying It

Judge Miller practically leaned over the bench and asked the question every South African has screamed into the void for years:

“If Zuma was the one benefiting… who ELSE would pay it back?”

This was the moment the courtroom collectively held its breath.

Msuku, unfazed, fired back:

The officials who approved the funding were the real wrongdoers
Zuma merely received the money “in good faith”
If anyone should pay, it is the state — not Zuma

He painted a picture of Zuma as a humble pensioner being dragged into court because the real culprits conveniently vanished into the mist.

It was dramatic.
It was poetic.
It was… ambitious.

The State Responds: “Nice Try, But No.”

Advocate George Avvakoumides stood up and unleashed a calm but devastating rebuttal:

“This argument is nonsense.”
(He used legal words — but that was the energy.)

The state’s position was razor sharp:

✔ The earlier judgments DID make Zuma liable, implicitly and clearly.
✔ A beneficiary cannot keep unlawfully spent funds.
✔ Officials cannot authorize legal fees for private individuals.
✔ Zuma owes the money — plus interest.

Yes, INTEREST.
Because apparently, when you use taxpayer money like a personal wallet for 10+ years, the state wants inflation compensation.

The Interest Drama — Because R28.9 Million Wasn’t Painful Enough

When Judge Miller added interest to the bill, Zuma’s team acted like they’d witnessed a crime.

Msuku argued:

No other parties asked for interest (except the DA, which hardly counts in Zuma’s universe)
Therefore, the order was “procedurally unfair”
This added burden was excessive and unjust

The state replied with a shrug and a dagger:

“This money should’ve been in the state’s pocket earning value. Pay up.”

In other words:
“You broke it, you bought it.”

Nkandla at Risk? Yes — VERY.

Before the appeal, Judge Miller already ordered that Zuma pay within 60 days or the state could attach his assets.

You know what that means:

🏠 Nkandla
🚜 The cattle
🌽 The chicken coop
🌿 The firepool (sorry, swimming pool)
🚗 The luxury cars
💼 Whatever’s left in the Louis Vuitton briefcase

All could be seized.

But for now — thanks to Zuma’s appeal — the bulldozers are parked and waiting.

Zuma’s Supporters vs. Zuma’s Critics

This ruling has split South Africa into two very loud camps:

🔥 Team Zuma Says:

“He’s being targeted again!”
“This is a political witch hunt!”
“They want to humiliate him before elections!”

❄️ Team Accountability Says:

“About time.”
“Pay back the money — literally.”
“How did he get away with this for so long?”

It’s chaos.
It’s drama.
It’s South Africa.

The Bigger Question: What Is Justice Really About?

This case isn’t just about money.
It’s about:

Who pays when government makes unlawful decisions?
Should officials or beneficiaries bear the cost?
How long will taxpayers cover political battles?
Can a former president claim ignorance after a decade of legal warfare?

This is the philosophical cage match South Africa didn’t ask for but can’t stop watching.

What Happens Next?

Judge Miller has reserved judgment on whether Zuma may appeal.

If the judge denies the appeal →
Zuma must pay. Immediately. With interest.
Nkandla could be on the auction block by Easter.

If the judge grants the appeal →
Brace yourself for another multi-year political circus, starring:

Zuma
The courts
Taxpayers
Outrage
And an endless supply of legal dramas

One Thing Is Clear: Zuma’s Legacy Is On Trial — Again

This is no longer about corruption cases, state capture, or prison stays.

This is about something far more personal:

Money. Responsibility. And revenge from a system he once controlled.

Whether he wins or loses, Jacob Zuma’s name will once again dominate headlines, courtrooms, political rallies, and family WhatsApp groups.

And so, South Africa waits — again — caught between past ghosts and future consequences.

Because when Zuma walks into a courtroom, the country holds its breath.

And this time, Nkandla itself may be on the line.