The forensic auditor who gave expert evidence for the state in the trial of Durban businessman Schabir Shaik has been accused of "painting by the numbers provided by the National Prosecuting Authority".

"I deny that," KPMG Director Johan van der Walt told the Durban High Court yesterday.

In a dramatic battle of minds, Van der Walt stuck to his report, and advocate Francois van Zyl SC, for Shaik, stuck to his questions.

Yesterday was Van der Walt's first day of cross-examination, after he had spent more than a week explaining to the court the various paper trails in the finances of Shaik, Deputy President Jacob Zuma and Shaik's Nkobi group of companies.

Shaik has pleaded not guilty to two charges of corruption and one of fraud. The charges relate to what the state says was a general corrupt relationship between Zuma and Shaik, and to an alleged attempt by Shaik to solicit a R1 million bribe on behalf of Zuma from French arms company Thint.

Van der Walt was asked a year ago to assist with the case, even though the NPA had already drawn up a charge sheet.

Extraordinary

"This was an extraordinary case. There was an accountant of the Directorate of Special Operations, who lacked the capacity (to complete the investigation). I was never instructed to, or felt obliged to, come to the same conclusions."

To support his allegation that Van der Walt had tailored his report to the wishes of the prosecution, Van Zyl then questioned him extensively about the development of Zuma's traditional homestead at Nkandla.

The state claims in the indictment that there was a close link between the first instalment of the French bribe, which was for R250 000, the payment for the development and a charitable trust called Development Africa, founded by Durban businessman Vivien Reddy.

In his report, Van der Walt said the money had been paid to fund the Nkandla development. Reddy had also been very closely connected to the financing of the development.

Van der Walt said they had also traced R2 million paid to Zuma by former president Nelson Mandela.

Half of this money had gone to the KZN Education Trust.

Of the remaining R1 million, an amount of R900 000 had been used to reduce the overdraft of an Nkobi company, Kobitech. The other R100 000 had been used to reduce Zuma's overdraft.

Van der Walt agreed that there had been three payments, two of R125 000 each and one for R250 000, made by Shaik or by Kobitech to Development Africa.

In his report, he said this money had been used to fund Zuma's Nkandla development.

Van Zyl then showed Van der Walt invoices for money paid by Development Africa to construction companies that had worked on residences for the Zulu king and queen.

"If you saw these, would you still have told the court that the R250 000 was for Nkandla?" he asked Van der Walt.

"I would have added an alternative conclusion. That the money from Mauritius (from Thint) was either for Nkandla or for the traditional leaders to make good the R1 million due (Development Africa) by Zuma."

He said Zuma had tried but could not pay the money to the traditional leaders, because Shaik had transferred the bulk of it to his own company's accounts.

The point he was making, Van der Walt said, was that there was a strong link between the money paid from Mauritius and Zuma. "Either way it would be for the benefit of Mr Zuma."

But Van Zyl was not backing down. He said the draft sheet given to Van der Walt when he had started his probe had linked Nkandla and a scheme to get bribe money from Thint.

The trial continues. Judge Hilary Squires presides.

With acknowledgements to Estelle Ellis and The Mercury.