State out to discredit document

The prosecution in the case of Durban businessman Schabir Shaik, who faces fraud and corruption charges, will dispute the authenticity of a two-page document putting the money dealings between Deputy President Jacob Zuma and Shaik above board *1.

The document was handed to Judge Hilary Squires in the Durban High Court yesterday during the cross-examination of the forensic auditor giving evidence for the state, Johan van der Walt.

Up to now, the state has suggested that R1,2 million in payments made to or on behalf of Zuma were carried out with corrupt intent.

The document handed in suggested that it was done in terms of a legal document that was signed five years ago.

According to Shaik's counsel, advocate Francois van Zyl SC, the legal document had been declared in a confidential Parliamentary register of members' interests.

Shaik has pleaded not guilty to two charges of corruption and a charge of fraud.

After a morning of preliminary skirmishes between Van Zyl and Van der Walt about Van der Walt's reasons for believing that the monies paid to Zuma were "donations" and not loans, it was with little fanfare that Van Zyl nonchalantly handed the document to Van der Walt.

Shaik had made mention of the existence of a revolving credit agreement between him and Zuma in his plea explanation.

But Van der Walt said in his evidence-in-chief that he had not found such a document among the 152 000 documents studied by him.

Advocate Billy Downer SC, who leads the state's team, said the prosecution would dispute that Exhibit P47 - the loan document - was a true document.

"We don't accept the authenticity of this document," he said.

Van Zyl said: "The loan is for five years. The loan period has expired.

"No new agreement has been struck, but the loan will carry on for another period."

Van der Walt replied: "I assume you will show me the balances and interest outstanding."

"Never assume anything in a court of law," Van Zyl said.

"Sorry, my Lord," Van der Walt replied.

"I am an accountant, not a lawyer."

Both sides now have a controversial fax that has provisionally been admitted into evidence. *2

The state's exhibit relates to a bribe that was allegedly solicited by Shaik for Zuma.

Shaik's team has the loan agreement, faxed in August this year.

"The original of this document is filed in the confidential section of the Parliamentary asset register.

"We had been trying - without success - to get it," Van Zyl said.

The document makes provision for revolving credit of R2 million for the benefit of Zuma, to be paid back over five years.

The interest would be calculated at the prevailing prime rate plus 2%.

Shaik's first name is spelt incorrectly on the document as "Shabir". *3

The document is signed by both Zuma and Shaik and is dated "16/5/1999".

Van Zyl said that his client would tell the court that even though it was against his client's religious convictions to ask for interest on loans, Zuma had in fact insisted on the inclusion of interest.

Shaik had then agreed to pay the amount of interest to charity.

Van der Walt's cross-examination continues today.

With acknowledgements to Estelle Ellis and the Daily News.

*1 Even if there was a valid loan agreement, this in no ways puts the deal organised by Deputy President Jacob Zuma on behalf of Shaik above board. The Executive Ethics Regulations precludes that. It might not be bribery, but it's still unlawful.

*2 Difference is - Thetard's original draft fax is in his own handwriting, another witness, Sue DeLique - his own personal assistant, has testified to typing the version meant for transmission and to actually transmitting the fax. She has submitted the both the paper original and the digital computer version into the court as evidence. The author of the fax, Thetard, has admitted by means of a commissioned affidavit to writing the handwritten fax.

*3 Sounds just like another letter we received from Llew Swan (ex CEO of Armscor) sent to Chippy Shaikh, but obviously signed in Chippy's office. This one had Llew Swan's name spelt incorrectly. And both Schabir Shaikh and Chippy Shaikh used to be lecturers at the MS Sultan College and Peninsula Technikon respectively. Chippy even claims to have an earned doctoral degree. It seems that the Shaikh Brother Document Manufacturing Business would do better than their Spelling Bee (sp?) Business.

*4 What is the plausibility of two parties signing a R2 million loan agreement and not keeping originals, let alone copies? What is the use of a Parliamentary Confidential Register of Member's Interests from which no one, not even the member, can extract a record that they had placed into the register.