Okay to name-drop, court told

There is not a single scrap of evidence to prove that Deputy President Jacob Zuma knew that his financial adviser Schabir Shaik was using his name to advance his business interests.

This was what Francois van Zyl SC asked Judge Hilary Squires to rule as he started his closing argument in Shaik's trial in the Durban High Court yesterday.

Earlier in the week, lead prosecutor Billy Downer SC had asked the court to convict Shaik of all charges against him - two of corruption and one of fraud.

All the charges have something to do with what the state has termed a "corrupt patronage" between Shaik and Zuma.

Downer argued that the state had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Shaik had used a scheme of payments to lock Zuma into a corrupt relationship where he "could not say no" to requests to help his financial adviser advance his business interests.

But Van Zyl argued that "name-dropping was a common phenomenon" and pointed out to the court that it had never been a crime.

"There is no evidence that Zuma was aware of the fact that Shaik was using his name," Van Zyl said.

Shaik looked more determined than ever as his counsel started his final argument, but admitted that the anticipation of a judgment in the near future was causing him a great deal of stress.

Van Zyl said that there were many indications in the evidence before court that should cast doubt over the state's case.

Reluctant

He further argued that the only thing the evidence before the court showed was that there was a financial relationship between the two.

Van Zyl said that Zuma was obviously reluctant to accept Shaik's help, which was offered to him in his capacity as "father figure and mentor".

Van Zyl also asked the court to rule that a copy of a loan agreement entered into by Shaik and Zuma was admissible and reflected the true state of affairs between the two men.

He pointed out that evidence of Zuma paying Shaik back supported the defence's case that the monies advanced to the deputy president were loans and not corrupt payments.

"It is a strange type of corrupt relationship where the corruptee pays back the corruptor," Van Zyl said.

He pointed out to the court that Zuma had declared his debt to Shaik to parliament.

"A parliamentarian declaring a bribe is unheard of," Van Zyl said.

"Human nature being what human nature is, it is highly unlikely too."

Even though he said that he would deal with the issue in detail next week, Van Zyl said that he was not surprised that Shaik's evidence was less than perfect.

He said that with the long time span covered by the charges against Shaik, and the enormous amount of facts and documents in the case, it would be natural for Shaik to "reconstruct and speculate".

Van Zyl added that the state had to prove that Shaik acted "with the intent to corrupt".

He said that, to do this, the state had to show that the payments were made with the intention to reward or to influence.

"It is submitted that the state failed," Van Zyl said.

The trial continues on Tuesday.

With acknowledgement to Estelle Ellis and The Independent on Saturday.