The Schabir Shaik trial ended on a bizarre note yesterday with defence counsel Francois van Zyl suggesting his own client may have committed fraud by sending the encrypted fax to Thomson-CSF to solicit for a bribe for himself *1.

Van Zyl’s comments, which formed part of his closing argument, came a day after he postulated that the fax could have been part of a ploy by Thomson-CSF Africa director Alain Thetard to use the Jacob Zuma Education Trust to enrich himself *2.

He also argued on Tuesday that the request for a donation *3 from (sic - for) the trust could have been disguised as a “bribe” because Thetard’s French bosses “had a problem with making donations”.

Wrapping up his closing argument after an epic seven-month trial, Van Zyl said Judge Hillary Squires could not convict Shaik of corruption for allegedly soliciting the R500 000 annual bribe if Deputy President Jacob Zuma was unaware of the event.

He submitted that “in the event the court” found Shaik’s testimony “not reasonably possibly true”, that his client and Thetard had discussed a bribe in exchange for protection against the French arms company being investigated.

Thetard had requested a coded confirmation from Zuma that would be communicated during a meeting in March 2000 and that Shaik told Zuma to pass on the coded message but had not explained its meaning.

“If (Shaik) had merely used Zuma to convince Thetard to pay him R500 000 a year without Zuma’s knowledge, Zuma and (Shaik) did not commit the offence in question,” Van Zyl said.

He said Shaik may have defrauded Thetard, but that was not an issue for which he has been charged.

“(Shaik) misrepresented the true position to Thetard. He could easily have convinced Thetard he was making a request for a bribe on behalf of Zuma … (and) it would certainly not have been an insurmountable problem to convince Zuma to use the code,” he said.

Prosecutor Billy Downer has said Thetard was “an unreliable witness *4” who had offered several official versions of events *5. The Frenchman also refused to testify.

However, Downer said Thetard’s character did not detract from the fax’s accuracy as an executive summary finalising the bribe. “Such actions are consonant with a falling out among thieves *6,” he said.

Squires said judgment would not be handed down before May 30.

With acknowledgements to Nicola Jenvey and Business Day.

*1 id est Shaik.

*2 id est Thetard.

*3 id est for Zuma.

*4 At least Thetard told the truth twice, id est in the fax and in his first affidavit confirming that he authored the fax.

2 (two) divided by 0 (zero) is oo (infinity) and so mathematically Thetard was infinitely more truthful than Shaik (or did Shaik tell the truth once or more?).

*5 Sounds almost like an et tu quoque (and you too) fallacy of argument (your "witness" offers more than one version and so my client is also entitled to offer more than one version).

*6 And so say all of us (or at least some of us).