Judgement in trial at least three weeks away

Sixty-eight court days since the fraud and corruption trial of Durban businessman Schabir Shaik started, the waiting has now begun.

As almost four years of investigation, preparation and prosecution brought the evidentiary part of the trial to a close, the last words from lead prosecutor Billy Downer in the Durban High Court yesterday were: "I am indebted to the court for the indulgence."

Outside court later, he said he and his team had tried their best and were looking forward to the judgment.

Both Downer and Shaik's counsel, Francois van Zyl SC, were thanked by Judge Hilary Squires for the "meticulously careful way" in which they had presented their cases, as well as their "sensible corroboration" and the way in which they had conducted the trial.

Shaik - uncharacteristically - had nothing to say. He indicated that he would comment after Squires made his ruling.

In contrast with the first day of the trial in October last year, the lengthy, complex and technical closing arguments caused the spectators in the public gallery and journalists in the press box to dwindle to a handful of stalwarts.

As Van Zyl asked the court to acquit his client on two charges of corruption and one of fraud, he asked the question that has been on everybody's lips since the beginning of the trial: "My learned friend (Downer) asked why (Deputy President Jacob) Zuma has not given evidence. We ask, Why has he not been charged?"

He argued that even if the court found that Shaik had lied about an allegation that he had solicited a bribe from French arms company Thomson on behalf of Zuma, it did not mean that he was guilty of corruption.

Van Zyl emphasised that the state had not proved there was a conclusive meeting of minds about a bribe agreement between Shaik, Zuma and French arms dealer Alain Thetard.

Plausible

He said an alternative theory - that Shaik had used Zuma's name to get money from Thomson - was as plausible *1 as the scenario put forward by the state.

In response, Downer argued that it was not open to them to speculate about a so-called "innocent explanation" at this stage of the trial. He said Shaik was "grasping at straws of possible salvation *2" and labelled Van Zyl's argument "untested, redundant and self-serving".

A tense Shaik, surrounded once again by an almost complete clan of his brothers, turned to fizzy vitamin tablets for energy. At times he would scribble furiously on a notepad, and at others he would sit back with his eyes closed, as if in pain.

For the first time since the start of the trial, the courtroom was almost devoid of files. All that was left on the usually cluttered table where Shaik was seated was a bottle of mineral water, a tube of vitamin pills, a pencil, a pen and two highlighters, and what Prof Themba Sono once called his "big old cellphone" - which has been since upgraded to a compact model.

The prosecution was too calculated to be called a gamble. But it certainly was a risk - and an expensive one, even without counting the number of high-flying careers on the line, whichever way Squires plans to swing this case.

A few years ago another judge, after calling for three rounds of closing argument and exhausting all possible questions, asked counsel: "So what do you want me to do now? Make a decision?"

Squires, too, seemed quite happy to do just that. Not that there was even the faintest indication at this stage of where the verdict would go.

As one counsel remarked during a tea break, Squires would make "one heck of a poker player" - which left those who exited the Durban High Court at 3.38pm yesterday with no option but to wait.

Judgment is expected on or after May 30.

With acknowledgements to Estelle Ellis and The Mercury.

*1 Richard Nixon would be proud - or jealous.

*2 Invest now by means self-sacrifice in the exoneration of one's principal now and obtain salvation by presidential pardon in 2009.