Financial adviser’s defence paints a different picture of ‘corrupt’ relationship

‘Mr Shaik will tell the court that at no time did he pay money to Mr Zuma as a bribe’

Early on in Schabir Shaik’s corruption trial, Durban High Court Judge Hilary Squires made it quite clear that it was Shaik, and not Deputy President Jacob Zuma, who was on trial.

It is, after all, Shaik who is charged with allegedly corrupting Zuma in exchange for protection and patronage. Zuma, the man who could become South Africa’s next president, survived a Scorpions investigation without being charged.

But as Shaik’s case enters its sixth week, his legal team have embarked upon a defence strategy that is as much about clearing Zuma’s name.

The prosecution’s portrayal of Zuma has been that of a big spender with a rubber cheque book; a liberation movement hero with a taste for the finer things in life but an inability and unwillingness to pay; a prolific father without the capacity to meet the material needs of his offspring.

The defence has been quick to try to deconstruct this image. It has introduced evidence to try to prove Zuma had a longer-term plan to pay back what he had borrowed; that his R3,2-million pension payout was pledged to Shaik on his retirement; and that he had cashed in an investment and given it to Shaik’s Nkobi Group at a time when it was battling.

Zuma, it has intimated, was slowly clawing his way out of the debt trap and his improved financial position gave hope that he would eventually sort Shaik out.

The state argues that Shaik’s collective payment of R1,2-million to Zuma and on his behalf constituted a “generally corrupt” relationship between the two former comrades-in-arms.

It claims Shaik solicited two bribes of R500 000 each on Zuma’s behalf from French arms dealer Thomsons (now Thint).

A third charge, of fraud, relates to the write-off of the loans to Shaik and Zuma against the Nkobi books.

Throughout cross-examination of the state’s expert witness, KPMG auditor Johan van der Walt, defence counsel Francois van Zyl has chipped away at the portrayal of a cash-strapped Zuma being kept afloat ­ and in political life ­ by bribes from Shaik and Nkobi.

In doing so, he has amplified the basis of Shaik’s not-guilty plea: that the money given to Zuma was a loan and that Shaik’s intervention in his patron’s financial affairs was based on comradely altruism rather than a desire to buy a potential future head of state.

Van Zyl portrays Shaik as a patient creditor and Zuma as a debtor who paid what he could and was willing to sign away future income to eventually meet his substantial debts.

On the charge relating to the R1,2-million, Van Zyl has done several things to try to break down Van der Walt’s evidence.

First, he last week introduced a copy of a “revolving loan agreement” for R2-million between Shaik and Zuma. The original, Van Zyl told the court, is lodged in the confidential section of Parliament’s register of assets.

He said Parliament had refused him access to the original document. The prosecution has said it will challenge the validity of the agreement, which has lapsed but which the defence says still holds.

Van Zyl also told the court Zuma had repaid Shaik significantly more than the repayments earlier acknowledged by the state.

He has also challenged the state’s argument that Zuma was expected by Shaik and Thomsons to use his influence as ANC deputy president to swing government contracts in their favour. Zuma did not have the level of influence claimed.

Van Zyl did not stop there.

On Thursday, he said Shaik would tell the court he believed he had an option on Zuma’s state pension once the cash-strapped deputy president retired from public office. *1

“As far as he was aware, Zuma should have no problem to pay [Shaik] what is owed to him when he becomes entitled to his pension lump sum,” Van Zyl said.

“He will say that as far as he is aware of Zuma’s financial position, there is no way that Zuma should not be able to pay him.”

Further, Shaik would say that “as far as he is aware”, Zuma had recently cleared some of his substantial debts at a string of banks and financial institutions. Zuma, Van Zyl said, “no longer has obligations to Nedbank and Standard Bank”.

Zuma had also paid Eric Malengret, the man who built his Nkandla village, R250 000 he had owed him.

Van Zyl challenged the state’s argument that the relationship between Zuma and Shaik was an inherently corrupt one.

“Mr Shaik will tell the court that at no time did he pay money to Mr Zuma as a bribe ... in his capacity as Economic Affairs MEC [in KwaZulu-Natal] or in his later capacity [as deputy president],” he said.

On the second charge which damages Zuma’s name, that Shaik solicited the bribe from Thomsons, Van Zyl argued this week that the money was for donations to the Jacob Zuma Education Trust and had earlier been pledged *2 by Thomsons director Alain Thetard.

Van Zyl’s earlier admission on Shaik’s behalf that Zuma did attend a meeting with Thetard in Durban in March 2000 may be one of the most damaging pieces of evidence heard about Zuma.

Van Zyl told the court Shaik would confirm that the meeting, which Zuma has denied attending, did in fact take place, but a day later *3 than the state had charged.

He said the meeting was to discuss “donations” for the trust and not a bribe for Zuma’s protection of Thomsons against arms deal investigators.

Zuma has denied, both in an affidavit to the Pretoria High Court and in Parliament, that he had attended any meeting with Thetard. *5

It is this admission which may leave Zuma ­ who still remains an unlikely candidate for the witness box ­ open to a perjury charge, presenting a fresh challenge to both his bid for the presidency and his long-term political survival.

Future Return: Schabir Shaik, says his defence team, believed he would be repaid from Zuma’s state pension
Picture: Jackie Clausen

With acknowledgements to Paddy Harper and the Sunday Times.

*1 Even if there was a valid loan agreement, it has been made ultra-secret and is therefore ultra-suspicious.

But a loan that extends over such a long period, indeed a period of maybe 15 to 20 years, i.e. 1999 to 2014 or 2019 (from alleged signature until retirement from politics after one or two five-year terms as president) is still an undue benefit.

see *6

*2 A donation pledge made by pre-arranged encoded declaration at a denied *4 meeting and confirmed by encrypted fax.

*3 Actually, a day earlier. The State believed from the evidence trail of crumbs left behind by the three merry donateers that the meeting took place on the morning of 11 March 2000, whereas Shaikh later admitted in court that it happened in the late afternoon or early evening of Friday 10 March 2000. Despite that donations to a bursary trust was all that was on the agenda, it prompted multiple and formal denials by the main trustee of the Education Trust that such meeting, or any similar meeting, ever took place, or that "finances" were ever discussed between the donateers.

refer : http://www.armsdeal-vpo.co.za/special_items/statements/zuma_statemnt.html

*4 It's enough to remind one of one Desai who denied that he naaied in Mumbai - that was until the conveniently stored DNA popped out of the lady's refrigerator.

*5 "Nuf said.

Simplistic Actuarial Science I

*6 If there was an outstanding loan of R1,2 million in 2001 then at average interest rate of 15% (average prime of 13% plus 2%) per year and without any repayments or further loans, by 2014 the loan amount would be R8,5 million, by 2019 the loan amount would be R17,1 million.

Even if the pension had grown, then just what would the retiree have to live on in graceful old age if it all had to be paid over on retirement? The Man certainly would need a Plan.

See :

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=39593

"‘Shocked’’, ‘‘hurt’’, ‘‘disappointed’’, are the feelings expressed by members of the local judiciary, lawyers and several leading social activists at charges that the 53-year-old Desai sexually assaulted the 26-year-old Cape Town resident at his hotel room in Mumbai late on Saturday night.

"While Desai has denied anything of the sort happened, and that all they shared were some drinks, the woman claims the judge may have mistaken her intentions at coming to his room at 3 in the night."