By Athandile Siyo 
Jun 30, 2021
Share this article:
Cape Town – The City of Cape Town has admitted to footing the legal costs of its embattled ward 23 councillor, Nora Grose, despite the DA previously challenging the government for paying for former president Jacob Zuma’s legal bills.
City Speaker Felicity Purchase said that the City footed the bill in terms of the Municipal Systems Act (Section 109A) and the speaker’s delegations, particularly delegation 1(3) Part 3.
The section authorises her as the Speaker to allow for legal assistance to be provided to councillors where legal proceedings have been instituted against an employee or councillor as a result of any act or omission in the exercise of his or her powers or the performance of his or her duties or if the employee or the councillor has been summoned to attend any inquest or inquiry arising from the exercise of his or her powers or the performance of his or her duties.
“It should be noted that the City may exercise a right of recourse for recovery of any expenditure incurred in terms of the policy if the finding is against the particular councillor.
“The above Policy provides that upon granting of an application for legal assistance, the director of legal services will arrange for the appointment of a suitable attorney. In line with the above, legal support is being provided to councillor Grose,” said Purchase.
The sub-council chairperson of Atlantis is currently out on R10 000 bail for allegations of misappropriation of funds involving R171 778 that she is alleged to have requested be transferred to Life Changers’ Church account, and misappropriating City of Cape Town funds.
She appeared for the second time at the Atlantis Magistrate’s Court last week and is set to appear again on July 30.
Good Party general-secretary Brett Herron, who initially raised concern over the footing of Grose’s fees, said that when politicians are required to defend actions they have taken in the official execution of their duties they are entitled to have their costs paid by taxpayers or ratepayers, but this should not extend to defending alleged criminal activities, as the Constitutional Court recently ruled in respect of Zuma in a matter brought by the DA.
“The DA appears to believe that different rules should apply to the public picking up the tabs for Jacob Zuma’s and Nora Grose’s legal costs,” said Herron.
Grose didn’t comment on the matter and said that she would be prejudicing herself.
Cape Times