Zuma's legal adviser gives conflicting account of how loan deal was done

With his financial adviser and his legal adviser contradicting each other, Deputy President Jacob Zuma may have been backed into a corner in a day of drama at the Durban High Court.

Zuma is now the only witness who can tell the court what happened when a loan agreement between him and his financial adviser Schabir Shaik was signed.

The agreement forms a pivotal part of Shaik's defence to a charge that there was a "general corrupt relationship" between himself and the deputy president.

Shaik has pleaded not guilty to this charge and also to another dealing with an alleged bribe agreement between Zuma and French arms company Thomson, as well as a charge of fraud.

"From the state's side there is a fair amount of scepticism about this date," said advocate Anton Steynberg, who cross-examined Zuma's attorney, Julie Mohammed, yesterday. He was referring to the date the loan agreement was signed.

The state disputes that the loan agreement handed to the court is authentic. They want the original to be sent for forensic analysis.

Mohammed, a defence witness, told the court that Zuma gave her permission to testify about her visit to Paris on his instructions, and on the loan agreement - but not on who paid for her to go to Paris.

Just before Mohammed took the stand, Shaik's attorney, Reeves Parsee, was preparing the court's files for the next witness when he tipped a glass of water onto Judge Hilary Squires' notes.

Mohammed, who had a nasty cold, said Zuma had asked her in May 1999 to draw up the loan agreement on the instructions of Zuma.

"He just wanted a simple agreement between friends," she said, adding that it had to be for five years and have an "interest-bearing clause".

Steynberg said he would argue that the document was "hastily compiled" and that the parties "never intended to rely on it".

Mohammed said she met Zuma and Shaik at the Edward Hotel in Durban, where she printed the document from her laptop. Both of them signed it. She left them there, taking the original with her. The laptop, she said, was later stolen from her offices in Johannesburg.

On her return to Johannesburg, she left the file at her office, instructing her secretary to see that copies were made. She arranged for the copies to be collected by Zuma's driver.

"Neither of them dated it (the agreement). I asked my secretary to copy it. She must have dated it."

Mohammed said she never dealt with the file again, until she received a phone call from Parsee.

He had asked if she had the original of the document. She had discovered that she had only a copy.

"I phoned Zuma and he said he would have a look if he had the original, but he thought I had it."

She said she had not charged Zuma for drawing up the loan agreement, or for travelling to Durban to discuss it with him and have it signed.

Mohammed also said that after allegations that an encrypted fax linked Zuma and Shaik to a bribe agreement with Thomson, she was asked to go to Paris.

"Zuma was frustrated by the matter of the fax. He was very anxious to see it. He asked me to see if we could get the fax or a copy from them, and also to ask questions and deliver a letter from him."

The French would only answer procedural questions, saying they would "revert" to her about the rest. Mohammed said she never received the answers.

The trial continues.

What Schabir Shaik said about the loan agreement:

It was signed at Kings House, Zuma's then official residence in Durban.

It was signed "middle to end of 1999".

Neither he nor Zuma dated the document, but somebody else did it later. *1

The loan agreement was extended in 2004, but Zuma asked for it to be done verbally as he was sensitive to the current "Scorpions investigation".

Zuma asked if he could keep the original, as he had to file it at parliament.

What Julie Mohammed said about the loan agreement:

It was signed at the Edward Hotel in Durban.

It was signed in May 1999, which was the week after the elections. She said she might be mistaken after the state pointed out that the elections that year were in June.

She did not date the document when it was signed, but her secretary might have put the date on it later.

Zuma asked her in May 2004 to draw up a further contract, but she had not done so yet.

She kept the original and organised for copies to be made for Zuma, but later discovered that she had only a copy in her file. She and Zuma never discussed filing the document at parliament.

With acknowledgements to Estelle Ellis and The Star.