Durban businessman Shabir Shaik is the man at the centre of the storm swirling around South Africa's Deputy President Jacob Zuma. It's alleged that Shaik used his friendship with, and relationship as Zuma's financial adviser to further his business interests and to secure a lucrative contract in the Government's R60-billion arms deal.

Shaik is also accused of brokering a R500 000 bribe which the Deputy President allegedly asked French Defence company Thales to pay in return for political favours. These were just some of the questions that Shabair Shaik faced during a marathon session with the Scorpions Police Unit this week.

In an exclusive interview with radio SAFM's Midday Live, Shaik spoke about all of these issues.

He began by talking about his relationship with Deputy President Zuma.

Q: Would you say that you are close friends?

A: Yes we are indeed very, very close. Our relationship had started way before the old apartheid days.

Q: It's been alleged that you've been supporting the Deputy President in numerous ways, that you've been helping him financially, you've been helping him pay off bonds on properties he owns, that you help pay school fees for his children, is any of this true?

A: This is part of the investi-gation that the Scorpions are currently conducting. While I can assure you there's nothing untoward in whatever assistance I may or may not have provided to the deputy president, I would really appreciate that we await the outcome of the discussions I would have with the Scorpions on this matter and I think the facts will speak for itself.

Q: Well, you have also been accused of relying heavily on your political connections, not only with Deputy President Zuma, to promote your business interests and particularly to secure government contracts. Would you say that that's true?

A: I can categorically deny that, and let me give you some underlying reasons as to why I am so clear about this. When Deputy President Zuma was KwaZulu-Natal Minister of Economic Affairs and Tourism, our group had not considered going into tourism or even considered venturing into those opportunities. That's when Trevor (Manuel) was Minister of Tourism.

Equally, when the deputy president in his capacity as MEC was part of a committee of our transport and airport company in the decision to design and relocate the Durban International Airport to La Mercy, we tendered for that consultancy work in conjunction with an international group called Tarmac. We lost that tender. And that's why I can't see how knowing the deputy president would have furthered my ambitions, business-wise speaking, in this province.

At a national level, I certainly don't call upon my relationships with him, both as a comrade, as a friend, to ask him to leverage any influence to anybody in the government. I don't think he will accept that; he'll find things too personal. And the basis of our relationship has not been founded on what we can gain from each other.

Q: Well it has been said by, in fact, one of the former directors of Nkobi Holdings, which is your company - former director Themba Sono - that you used to boast you didn't need to come up with the money because you would be able to secure the contracts as a result of these political connections.

A: Let's apply our minds to what Mr Sono has allegedly said. Where on God's earth, and certainly in South Africa, can you land a contract without having put in financing? (We were) to raise R4,1 billion, those off-shore with local equity and off-shore equity, we are to get a whole host of international and domestic investors. Because if it's easy for me just to land a contract that takes two years to put together, if it's so easy just to get the finance, I can assure you that's not the case.

Even with the driver's licence, now that we are in our second production period, how many institutions were very concerned in funding us in this regard. And therefore I cannot see the correlation.

Q: Mr Shaik, let's turn to specifics. The story which is domin-ating the front pages of South Africa's newspapers, the allegations of corruption surrounding the government's arms procurement deal. Now, specifically you were present at a meeting with the French Defence company, Thales, and their executive, Allan Tatard, on March 11, 2000.

Now Deputy President Zuma was also at that meeting and it's alleged that the deputy president solicited a bribe of R500 000 from Thales in return for political protection over the arms deal, and that you played a key role as facilitator. This goes to the heart of the investigation. Can you tell us whether the Deputy President asked for any money from Thales at any time in return for political favours?

A:There are several inaccuracies in what you've said. For example, you know that the Deputy President said he had not met with Tatard on the 11th of September.

Q: Did he met with Tatard at any time?

A: Yes, he would have met with Tatard and many other businessmen in his capacity as Minister of Economic Affairs and Tourism. It's his job to meet with business people and encourage foreign direct investments in the country ... I think this is despicable because if the Scorpions contend that if there's three parties in a meeting and having a discussion on several issues and one allegedly is financing, and the three parties then go their separate ways, one party records his understanding of that meeting and sends that recording off to his bosses or peers in France, as it appears to be, why should the other two parties be in agreement of what he heard, unless he copied to the deputy president and to myself and said this is a minute of that, an extract of that meeting we've had on the other day, if you can recall. Would you agree this is an accurate reflection of the minute, if you think it so, please sign it off.

Q: So what you are saying effectively, is Allan Tatard's memo to his boss was in fact a misunderstanding of what had transpired at the meeting?

A: Well, undoubtedly. I mean some of the facts that we are going to be bringing out in our court case, and that's certainly the issue we are... (I'm sorry I'm sitting in front of my directors here) ... so I mean why doesn't Bulelani, why don't you ask Mr Bulelani if has he been to France to meet with Mr Tatard. If he has not met with Tatard, has he met with Tatard's legal advisors? What was the information that Tatard's legal advisors gave to Bulelani? Why doesn't he conclude the investigation based on that? Why does he rather choose to believe a foreigner, over what he calls comrades, criminals like the deputy president?

Q: As I understand it the Scorpions and Mr Bulelani Ngcuka are in fact attempting to press or pursue those particular questions with the deputy president. Have they succeeded in getting an answer out of yourself?

A: I was very prepared, as you know, and I've said on several occasions, I went with my legal advisors, senior counsellor lawyer, to answer the questions which have always plagued the Scorpions, and I can understand that the Scorpions are requiring certain reasonable explanations to not just (the) letter, but to a range of issues. But what I cannot understand is that they want to be judge and jury. I can't go forward to the Scorpions and say that I am now more than happy to answer these questions and they listen to what I have to say, then take a decision that what I'm saying is not honest, not accurate, not truthful and then charge me.

And that's why I differ with Judge McClaren on this matter. I would have liked to have an independent judge or magistrate sit on this matter, or while the Scorpions are questioning me, I would like an independent arbitrator sit on this. You can't be asking me questions, soliciting my responses and then because of other agendas that I believe are parading in the Scorpions, you then charge me. So we challenge the law ... because if I don't challenge the law, assuming you have sources giving you information that you want to protect, the Scorpions can slap you with a Section 28 and you can't remain silent.

Q: Mr Shaik, can I just clarify, how much did African Defence Systems ... successfully bid for a slice of the arms deal contract, which was awarded to Silas?

A: The total bid was in the order of R60 billion, if you take the future of currency prices into account. If you take current, you are working roughly on R30 billion, for example. Of the R30 billion there were at least 11 packages that defence contractors had to put in, even air defence systems, line defence system or naval defence system. Silas being the second largest in the world, we would have enough capacity to tender for all 11 packages and possibly win as many as they could. They are the number two in the world (inaudible).

Martin refused to trade with South Africa, so the gap was open. How is it that Silas only wins one aspect of the naval combat systems, loses the air defence, loses line, but wins just one aspect and that aspect translates to, in the order of R1.6 billion that comes into what we call the German (inaudible) contortion, of which of the R1.6 billion a large portion of that, at least 80% of that, 60% or so, flows to companies in France, the 400 million or 600 million remains in ADS in South Africa and the balance flows to local contractors, including Richard Young's company.

Q: That's in fact the answer that I was looking for; just how much ADS got out of the deal that was awarded to Thales...

A: In a greater context of the defence project, if I have a brother who will just pick up the phone and say well my brother's involved in defence with Thales, make sure they win this contract, why would I go for R400 million when there's R30 billion. I'm gonna take a lot of heat, let me take the heat for R30 billion and to suggest that brother will just pick up the phone and make things work will really be naive and not understanding the procurement processes in South Africa. A total naive view about that.

As you know, the ministers, Minister Jeff Radebe, Alec Erwin and Trevor Manuel, have come out in support of this process and said they could not find anything that would suggest remotely that Shabair Shaik or Chippy Shaik unduly influenced the process so that his brother's company could win the contract.

Q: Now nonetheless, I mean, your brother's position and the fact that the Scorpions discovered cabinet minutes, which should not have been in your possession on your property, has raised these questions as to your re-lationship and perhaps the influence that your brother might have used in securing this contract?

A: You know, the issue of cabinet minutes... When the matter gets to court I can assure you the nation will be laughing. Those individuals, those news media that have kept saying that this is cabinet minutes of a meeting, in fact I would have the last laugh.

However, remember my charges were that I personally stole cabinet minutes of meetings. The third charge was that I used minutes of meetings to shape my tender and win the contracts that were giving the so-called competitive technology edge.

The fourth charge ... after doing all of the other three, I seem to hand this document over to Armscor, or any government agency. Fifth charge ... possession, this is Mickey Mouse charges. You know what Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck is, this is what these charges are. Because the contracts were signed in December 1999, these were so-called minutes of meetings from March 2000. So it really tells you if you are intelligent, that how could I possibly use cabinet minutes of meetings in March 2000 to shape a contract that was signed in December 1999.

With acknowledgement to the Daily News.