He was left with the impression that "only one person could get (Deputy President Jacob) Zuma's signature" supporting a tourism initiative, and that was Durban businessman Schabir Shaik, a Scottish professor has said at Shaik's trial.

Prof John Lennon testified in Shaik's corruption and fraud trial in the Durban High Court yesterday. Lennon, who arrived from Scotland yesterday morning and will be going back home today, has made the quick visit to Durban after the state failed in its application to lead his evidence by satellite link.

Lennon told the court he had come to South Africa in 1998 as part of a trade delegation, to look at how skills could be developed to enhance tourism. The plan was to start an eco-tourism school in KwaZulu-Natal. He had met Shaik in Johannesburg in 1998 and recalled that it was considered vital for Zuma, then KwaZulu-Natal minister of tourism and economic development, to give his support to the project.

Lennon said that after "waiting for a long time" he had managed to meet Zuma, who was "very keen" on the idea of an eco-tourism school.

Lennon asked Zuma for a "letter of support" which was needed to obtain funding for a feasibility study, which Zuma promised he would provide. Lennon went back to Scotland and waited for his letter.

"It took a very long time," he said.

In January 1999 Deva Ponnoosami, Nkobi's London agent, wrote to Shaik, saying Lennon was experiencing trouble in "getting JZ's signature". Lennon told the court that he had drafted a very simple draft letter and faxed it to Ponnoosami as an example.

On February 4 1999 the letter from Zuma finally arrived. It had been faxed from Shaik's Nkobi Holdings' fax machine. The letter expressed Zuma's support for the venture, and the suggestion that Lennon make Nkobi Holdings his South African partner for the venture.

"It was interesting, but premature," Lennon said. "We had South African partners - at that stage we were just dealing with bread-and-butter stuff.

"It was peculiar that the letter was not sent from Zuma's office," Lennon said. "I wondered why Zuma would suggest one company in particular. I also found it unusual that a minister had to be helped to write a letter. It did not fill me with confidence."

On the same day Lennon received a letter from Nkobi Holdings, confirming their interest in being Lennon's project partner. "It was a busy day for the fax machine. Faxes were coming through thick and fast."

Lennon replied to Shaik that he was keen to discuss the project but "it was early days". This drew an angry reply from Shaik, written by Nkobi employee Martyn Surman.

"I have to advise you that he (Shaik) finds your response insulting to say the least," Surman wrote.

"It seemed a bit harsh. Shaik must be easily insulted," Lennon said.

Surman also wrote that it was only through Shaik's intervention that they had finally obtained a letter of support from Zuma.

"There was an unusual and irregular implied reference here that only one person could get Zuma's signature," Lennon said.

Surman further demanded project details to be delivered within three days, "failing which (Shaik) will go back to Minister Zuma".

In another letter to Ponnoosami, Shaik wrote that if Lennon missed this deadline "I will seek to do what is necessary to stop (his) progress".

"I thought, naively, that they only wanted to get the project going," Lennon said. "The letter suggests that there was a degree of influence over Zuma. It was unusual, unfortunate and tragically unforgivable, given that it stopped a project that would have been worthwhile.

"I did not reply to their letter," he said. "I wanted nothing to do with them. Despite our best efforts we got nowhere with the project. We had to move on. It was very disappointing."

Shaik's counsel, advocate Francois van Zyl SC, told the court Shaik would say:

He had never met Lennon.
The letter written to Lennon by Zuma had been suggested by Ponnoosami. Shaik thought that was what Lennon had wanted.
The letter had been faxed from Nkobi's fax machine.
He had asked Surman to write the unfortunate letter referring to him being insulted, but it was done because Shaik felt he was being sidelined.
He denied having anything to do with the project's never coming to fruition.

The trial continues. Judge Hilary Squires is presiding.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extract from letter to Professor Lennon, dated 4th February 1999, from Minister Zuma, Minister of Economic Affairs and Tourism, KwaZulu Natal Provincial Government:

I have had discussions with one such company namely Nkobi Holdings, head-quartered in Durban. They are keen to participate in this venture as it fits well with their own leisure plans. I suggested to them to make contact with yourselves directly to speed the process and hopefully together you will both enhance the Kwazulu Natal tourism industry through raising the profile and excellence of the personnel involved in this industry.

I am forwarding this letter to you in the event of my earlier communication not been received by yourself.

Two extracts from a letter to Professor Lennon dated 15 February 1999, signed by Martyn Surman, Business Development, Nkobi Holdings, cc to Mr Schabir Shaik, Executive Chairman & CEO

Dear Professor Lennon

Eco Tourism Training Facility and Feasibility Study

I have been asked by my Executive Chairman & CEO, Mr Schabir Shaik, to reply to your letter to him dated 9 February 1999.

I have to advise you that he finds your response insulting to say the least and that he considers that it lacks the business ethics which it deserves.

[The letter ends:] Mr Shaik has asked me to advise you that he is prepared to give you three days in order to come back to him, sketching out the issues referred to above, failing which he will go back to Minister Zuma.

Letter, dated 24th February 1999, to Deva Ponnoosami, Southern African Marketing, from Schabir Shaik, Executive Chairman & CEO, Nkobi Holdings

Dear Deva,

Kindly inform me in precise terms about: 1 Your discussions with Miles Faulkner regarding CDR/Nkobi and Price Water House tender.

2 Also inform me of your precise discussion with Professor John Lennon with regards to my request from him, as he has not yet responded to my letter. I will regard this matter as being, some what serious.

I shall be meeting with Minister Zuma tomorrow and if I do not receive the information as requested in my letter dated 15th February 99, I shall move to inform Minister Zuma and seek to do what ever is necessary to stop Professor Lennon's process.

With acknowledgements to Estelle Ellis an d The Mercury.