State wants documents to be used as evidence

After three years, five months and a few days of work on the arms deal investigation senior special investigator Johan du Plooy gave a little smile and stepped out of the witness box yesterday in the Schabir Shaik fraud and corruption trial.

It was Du Plooy, who has been involved in the investigation since August 2003, who had to obtain warrants of arrest, organise the searches, try to keep the seized documents in order, find the right document for the right witness, line up the witnesses, get those from far away to Durban, cajole those who did not want to give evidence and finally take the witness stand himself.

And when they left court, it was Du Plooy who carried the box of files to lead advocate Billy Downer's office - from where they were planning their next offensive - expected to be the first major legal showdown between Shaik's legal team and the prosecution. At issue are a number of "disputed documents", most notably a handwritten note setting out an alleged bribe agreement between a former South African boss of French arms company Thomson, Alain Thetard, Shaik and Deputy President Jacob Zuma.

The State wants these documents, among others, to be accepted into evidence. But as the man who wrote it was not before court, either as an accused or a witness, it is technically hearsay evidence. To be successful in getting the court to give due consideration to the document, the prosecution would have to prove that it falls under one of the exceptions which could be allowed.

Du Plooy, who was the State's last witness in the marathon trial, spent his last few hours in the witness stand to explain their efforts to get Thetard to South Africa to answer their questions.

He explained that after the Scorpions had interviewed Thetard and others, he was asked to obtain warrants for Thetard's arrest on charges of perjury and corruption.

In 2004 he received another instruction from Downer to cancel these warrants.

During his evidence and cross-examination Du Plooy told the court about the State's struggle to get two directors of Thomson to give evidence.

Another former director of the arms company, Pierre Moynot, gave them an incomplete affidavit when they asked him questions about the company's involvement in the alleged bribery of Zuma, he said.

He added that they were planning on at least consulting with Moynot and possibly calling him as a witness. But a few weeks before he was due to give evidence, Moynot's attorney sent a letter to Downer saying that Moynot will not consult with the State's legal team. It was then decided not to call him to give evidence.

Du Plooy also said that even though he was not part of the negotiations that led to the withdrawal of the warrants of arrest against Thetard, he understood that it was done after Thetard confirmed that he wrote the note setting out what the State claims to be a bribe agreement between Shaik, Thetard and Zuma.

But Shaik's counsel Francois van Zyl SC read an affidavit *1 made by Thetard to Judge Hilary Squires. In the affidavit Thetard said that he did not agree with the interpretation the State was giving to the fax.

In the same affidavit Thetard said he did not fax it to anywhere nor did he directed for it to be faxed. "I crumpled it and threw it into the wastepaper basket from where it was possibly retrieved and provided to the State," he said.

Earlier Thetard's secretary, Sue Delique, said he had asked her to type the note and fax it.

While he gave evidence, Du Plooy handed a number of documents to the court. One of these was a note addressed to Shaik, stating: "When your friend Jacob Zuma becomes deputy president - you will be in the pound seat!!"

Van Zyl said his client would tell the court that he has no independent recollection of this note, but believes that it fit into the time frame when Zuma was elected deputy president of the ANC. "It might as well refer to that," Van Zyl told Du Plooy.

The trial continues tomorrow.

With acknowledgements to Daily News and Estelle Ellis.

*1 This is another separate affidavit.

Thetard submitted a sworn affidavit confirming that he was the author of the encrypted fax. That got him and Thomson-CSF off the bribery and corruption charges as Accused No. 10 (or 11?) in this trial.

This deal was done by Adv Kessie Naidu SC - remember him? - and Adv Bulelanu Ngcuka - remember him?

The savory escargot then submitted a further sworn affidavit to say that although he admitted authoring the unsavory fax, it had nothing to do with a bribery arrangement - just unconnected and random musings of a muddled serial briber on the plane back from Durban to Johannesburg.

Just why would Thomson-CSF secretly agree and secretly pay a donation of R500 000 per year, until ADS starts paying dividends, to the Jacob Zuma Education Trust.

Was it that, once ADS started paying these dividends, then its Chief Execute Officer, Pierre Moynot or one of the other Thomson-SF directors, would recommend to the Annual Shareholders' Meeting to make further donations to the Jacob Zuma Education Trust in the form of such dividends?

Or for those who less frequently visit Alice in her Wonderland with a couple of milligrams of some opium derivative coursing through their bloodstreams and interfering with their synapases, is it more likely that such dividends were due to the occult shareholders hidden behind Nkobi Holdings's special purpose vehicles, Clanwest Investments (Pty) Ltd and Floryn Investments (Pty) Ltd?

Let Squires be the judge - in this instance