DEPUTY President Jacob Zuma allegedly used a request for support for a tourism school in KwaZulu-Natal to try to force the man running it to cut his financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, in on the deal.

This was allegedly done in writing by Zuma, then MEC for Economic Affairs and Tourism in KwaZulu-Natal, after he had been approached by tourism expert John Lennon from Scotland for support for the project.

Lennon, who flew to Durban from the UK to testify, is the first witness to implicate Zuma in alleged acts of corruption.

Part of the state’s case against Shaik hinges on proving a “generally corrupt” relationship between the two men. The state argues that Shaik paid Zuma a “retainer” of R1.2-million over five years in return for protection and the use of his political office to secure business for Shaik.

Lennon told the court he had come to South Africa in 1998 as a tourism expert attached to a trade delegation.

He said he wanted to set up a tourism school in KwaZulu-Natal with a view to creating jobs and developing the tourism industry.

He told the Durban High Court he had begun work with two local partners, Ash Consulting Group and Environmental Design Partnership (EDP), but was “open to talk to anybody who was interested in taking the project forward”.

Lennon said he met Zuma in his Durban office as “it would be tricky to get any project going ... without some support from that office”.

“From the British side, they thought it very important that we had the support of key political figures like Zuma,” he said.

Zuma, Lennon said, was “very keen, very enthusiastic” about the project. “I said it would help my case if I could get a letter of support. He [Zuma] seemed keen ... he said he would provide a letter ... which would have helped our case.”

Lennon returned to the UK and waited for several months for Zuma’s letter. When it finally arrived, it came from Shaik’s Nkobi Holding’s fax machine and not Zuma’s department, something Lennon described as “peculiar”.

The letter expressed support for Lennon’s project. It also stated that Zuma had discussed the matter with Nkobi, which was “keen to participate in this venture as it fits well into their own leisure plans”.

Zuma suggested Lennon “make contact” with Nkobi to “speed the process” and “bring this initiative to fruition”.

Lennon said he felt Zuma’s proposal that he do business with Shaik was inappropriate because he already had two local partners and the project was still at a pre-feasibility stage. “I just felt it was unusual that they [Nkobi] should be proposed in this way by the minister ... you wonder why one company in particular, when we had already partners in place,” Lennon said.

Then, on February 4 1999, Shaik’s business development manager, Martyn Surman, wrote to Lennon expressing Nkobi’s interest in doing business with him. On the same day, a second letter from Zuma was sent to the Development Bank of Southern Africa supporting the project and asking the bank to “rapidly” arrange funding.

Lennon said he wrote back to Nkobi saying the company should meet Ash and EDP, his local partners.

Surman sent a letter to Lennon on February 16 to say Shaik found Lennon’s response “insulting”.

Shaik felt he had been “marginalised” after he got Lennon the letter of support and demanded a business plan and a work-share agreement. “Mr Shaik has asked me to advise you that he is prepared to give you three days ... failing which he will go back to Minister Zuma,” Surman said in the letter.

Lennon said the letter implied Shaik was “the only person” who could get Zuma to offer support, something he felt was “unusual and irregular”.

The letter suggested a “degree of influence over Minister Zuma and that if I didn’t do as I was told ... Zuma might potentially withdraw his support”.

In a letter to Shaik’s UK representative Deva Ponnoosami — whom Lennon had earlier met — nine days later, Shaik said he would be meeting Zuma and would “do whatever is necessary to stop” Lennon’s project.

Lennon said that, thereafter, the project “seemed to never get beyond the application for pre-investment feasibility study ... despite the considerable amount of support it seemed to enjoy”.

In cross-examination, Shaik’s counsel Francois van Zyl said his client had first heard about Lennon’s project from Zuma. Shaik had been led to believe by Ponnoosami that Lennon was interested in working with him, he said.

He said Shaik would testify that the letters had been faxed from Nkobi because Nkobi had Lennon’s contact details and Zuma’s department didn’t.

Shaik, he said, would tell the court he had become sensitive about being sidelined as other prospective partners had previously done this to him and that the project’s failure had “nothing to do with anything he did from his side”.

With acknowledgements to Paddy Harper and the Sunday Times.