Conflicting statements mark day of high drama in Shaik trail

With his financial adviser and his legal adviser contradicting each other, Deputy President Jacob Zuma was backed into a corner by their evidence in a day of high drama at the Durban High Court yesterday.

Zuma is now the only remaining 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 charge of corruption, 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.

The state is disputing that the loan agreement handed to court is an authentic document. They want the original to send for forensic analysis.

Mohammed, who was called as a defence witness, also told the court that Zuma had given her permission to testify about her visit to Paris on his instructions and on the loan agreement, but not on who had 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 over a glass of water on Judge Hilary Squires's notes.

Clean-up operations followed, during which the stenographer played music over the recording equipment.

Outside court a major storm was brewing over Durban. About midday, Mohammed took the stand.

She told the court that Zuma had asked her in May 1999 to draw up the loan agreement.

"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 to it "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 and she left them there, taking the original with her.

The laptop, she said, was later stolen from her offices in Houghton.

On her return to Johannesburg she left the file at her office, instructing her secretary to see to it that copies were made. She said she had 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 had never dealt with the file again until she had received a phone call from Parsee.

Parsee asked her if she had the original of the document. When she looked in her files, she discovered that she only had a copy.

"I phoned Zuma and he said he would have a look if he had the original, but he thought I had it... later the state legal adviser came back to me and asked me to look properly. I looked everywhere."

Under cross-examination she said she had not charged Zuma for drawing up the loan agreement.

Mohammed also said that, after allegations surfaced that an encrypted fax had 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 go and see if we could get the fax or a copy from them, and also to ask questions and deliver a letter from him."

Mohammed said she went to Paris on her own, but met Shaik and Parsee "on the flight".

She said that the French would only answer her procedural questions, and said they would "revert" to her about the rest.

"Essentially, Zuma wanted to know if the fax existed," she said.

She said she had never received answers about the rest of her questions.

The trial continues.

What Schabir Shaik said about the loan agreement:

• It was signed at King's 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.

• 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 to her 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 correct 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 only had a copy in her file. She and Zuma never discussed filing the document at parliament

With acknowledgements to Estelle Ellis and The Mercury.