[Paying Zakat to One Unfit to Administer It]

Answer—and with Allah is success:
— The jurists of the madhhab have said that what an unjust person seizes by usurpation is not counted. On that basis, the questioner may not count what he gave from zakāt to one who is not among its rightful recipients, even if he intended it as zakāt.
This is supported by the fact that Allah has designated zakāt and made it obligatory for eight categories and confined it to them, and has vested the authority to distribute it in the rulers of the Muslims, if present, or else in the owner of the wealth. Accordingly, the owner does not discharge the obligation of zakāt unless he gives it to its rightful recipients—those eight; and he remains liable for it if he does not deliver it to its rightful recipients.
— That said, it may also be said: The owner of the wealth is obligated to safeguard the zakāt in his possession until he gives it to those entitled to it; it is a trust with him, and he may not be negligent regarding it. He must defend it against those who covet it and repel them to the extent he is able. If matters reach the point that he fears harm from the covetous person to himself, his property, or his child, then there is no blame upon him if he repels their harm and greed with a portion of the zakāt, and he may count it toward his zakāt with appropriate intention.
Evidence for this includes:
1 - He has done what was possible and within his capacity in safeguarding and defending the zakāt. “Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity.” [al-Baqarah:286]. Allah will not take him to task for what was beyond his capacity, nor obligate him to guarantee what is of that kind—this is the ruling for all trusts; nor is he obliged to protect another’s wealth at the expense of his own.
2 - It is not related that the Commander of the Faithful—peace be upon him—ordered anyone to repay zakāt when he assumed the caliphate; likewise with the other Imāms—peace be upon them. This indicates a dispensation in what a covetous usurper seized.
If it be said: Zakāt is not specified—even if the owner “specifies” it—and it is not specified as zakāt until it reaches the hand of the poor person or the official collector. On that basis, what the covetous person seized is not zakāt, even if the owner intended it as such.
It is said in reply: There is no doubt that the covetous person who seeks the zakāt intends to take the zakāt itself, not to take some other part of the zakāt-payer’s property; and the threats, trouble from the usurper, scheming against the owner, and the fear of him that befell the owner were on account of what he had …
Source : Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.1