Judge's ruling on disputed documents leaves corruption accused with no option but to testify

Tomorrow corruption accused Schabir Shaik faces a nightmare — moving from the dock into the witness box in the Durban High Court and confronting his accusers head-on.

For the first time the public — and Judge Hillary Squires — will meet the real Schabir Shaik.

So far Shaik's counsel, Francois van Zyl, has spoken on his behalf, both in cross-examining prosecution witnesses and in outlining his client's defence.

Witness after witness, from former associates like Professor Themba Sono and secretary Bianca Singh to KPMG auditor Johan van der Walt, have spoken about Shaik, his personality, his business dealings and his relationship with Deputy President Jacob Zuma.

Now, after months of waiting, it is Accused No 1 himself: no lawyer's interpretation, no witness's version, but Schabir Shaik in person.

Which Shaik enters the witness box will depend on how he stands up under examination and cross-examination. Will it be the altruistic activist-turned- businessman who went out on a limb to keep Zuma afloat with no intention of securing a big payday for himself? Or will it be the bullying, foul-mouthed, name-dropping braggart described by several witnesses?

After Thursday's crucial judgment on the admissibility of disputed documents, the defence was left with no option but to take the risk and put Shaik on the witness stand.

The judge ruled that the encrypted fax from Alain Thetard, manager of Thomson (now Thint) South Africa, to his bosses in France allegedly requesting a R500000-a-year bribe for Zuma, is now admissible.

The judge also ruled, possibly even more damagingly for Zuma, that an affidavit by former Renong company official David Wilson alleging that Zuma tried to force Renong to do business with Shaik in the Point Waterfront deal be admitted as evidence.

In his admissibility judgment, the judge said that while the contents of the documents still needed to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the first step towards achieving this was that they be placed "in the scale".

The judge said the "narrative of events" including Zuma's inability to live within his salary and Shaik's increasing difficulty in funding the shortfall, pointed "to a convergence of activities to meet the possible danger of public embarrassment or even prosecution".

This, combined with evidence of repeated meetings between Shaik, Zuma and Thomson officials from late 1999 to May 2000, and the "curiously opaque" language in which these meetings were arranged, all convinced the judge that the document should at least be admitted and face a legal test.

Shaik's defence, as outlined earlier by Van Zyl, will rest on several pillars. On the first count of a "generally corrupt relationship" with Zuma in which Zuma allegedly got an eventual R1.2-million for services to Shaik, Shaik will argue that he merely helped his comrade out, with no corruption intended or committed.

On the second count of fraud (alternatively tax evasion) related to how this sum was written off, he will argue that it was a mistake by accountants for his company Nkobi, who were told to correct it when he found out.

On the third count, also corruption, concerning the encrypted fax and the two alleged bribes of R500000 a year, Shaik will argue he had no knowledge of the fax or its contents.

As Shaik prepares to take the stand, the big question is whether Zuma will come to court as a witness to explain his relationship with the man the state says bought him for a mere R1.2-million and the promise of another R1-million from Thomson.

Without Zuma, Shaik appears to have no other witness directly linked to his business activities who is prepared to come to his defence.

Zuma's spokesman, Zanele Mngadi, was at the time of going to press unable to say whether any approach had been made to Zuma to appear as a witness.

But behind the scenes there has been constant consultation between Shaik's legal team, Zuma's private legal advisers and lawyers who represent his office.

But if the defence calls Zuma, who has repeatedly said he relishes the opportunity to clear his name, it would have the potential of further damaging his already tarnished image.

Putting him on the stand would allow prosecutors to humiliate him over his lifestyle, his curious friendship with Shaik and his political connections with the Nkobi Group boss.

And, if Shaik is, as he insists, a "loyal and disciplined comrade" of Zuma's, the last thing he would want is to place his patron in such a tenuous position.

With acknowledgements to Paddy Harper and the Sunday Times.