If the money paid to Deputy President Jacob Zuma by Schabir Shaik was a loan, he did not declare it in the parliamentary or cabinet register of members' interests.

Among other things, the Scorpions are attempting to show in Shaik's trial that Shaik paid money to Zuma on an ongoing basis and in return used Zuma as a reference to secure the award of large contracts in an improper manner.

Amid accumulating evidence of the magnitude of such payments (approximately R1,2 million) Shaik's legal team played an apparent trump card on November 4 last year.

Advocate Francois van Zyl SC, representing Shaik, submitted an alleged interest-bearing loan agreement between Shaik and Zuma, which would not exceed R2 million, to the court. It was supposedly drawn up in 1999.

If the amount was a loan it would be more difficult for the state to prove anything improper than if it was paid purely as a kind of donation. The existence of the alleged contract was news to the state's legal team at the time and Shaik would not allow the media to copy the fax, since Zuma supposedly still had to "declassify" it.

At the time Van Zyl bolstered the existence of the alleged contract by saying it was submitted confidentially as part of "the declaration that parliamentarians have to make to Parliament".

His words were generally understood as referring to the register of members' interests, which contains a public and a confidential part. Access to the latter may be gained only if the MP agrees or if a court order is obtained.

This raised some eyebrows in political circles at the time because the register in fact exists for MPs to be able to declare their assets and incomes. If the agreement represented an interest-bearing loan, the declaration of its existence would have been unusual since it would have been a liability for Zuma.

The Scorpions wrote to Speaker Baleka Mbete, and the chairman of the National Council of Provinces, M.J. Mahlangu, to obtain information. The two replied that no loan agreement in the public or confidential part of the register had been submitted on behalf of Zuma.

They pointed out to the Scorpions that when the parliamentary standing committee on ethics and members' interests investigated Zuma in 2003 *1, he showed them a copy of an alleged agreement on a confidential basis, but they emphasised that it would be of no use to the Scorpions since it was not an original document.

In any case, the proceedings of the standing committee and any documents submitted to it are privileged information which Parliament does not wish to release. Mbete and Mahlangu referred the Scorpions to the cabinet's register of members' interests, which is managed in Pretoria by Dr Frank Chikane, secretary of the cabinet, since Zuma told the standing committee that he declared it in there.

Further inquiries to Chikane the day before yesterday revealed that no declaration of a loan agreement dated May 16, 1999 was ever submitted by Zuma. The Scorpions' search for an original version of the alleged loan agreement therefore continues and when provisionally concluding the state's case yesterday the prosecutor, Advocate Billy Downer SC, reserved the right to bring further information about the alleged agreement before the court.

With acknowledgements to Jan-Jan Joubert and The Natal Witness.

*1  The preliminary investigation by the DSO into Shaik and Zuma was conducted between September 2000 and August 2001.

In about September 2001, the Investigating Director of the NPA/DSO formally upgraded the investigation into a fully-fledged investigation.

Indeed the search and seizure raids on Thomson-CSF, Shaik and his Nkobi Group were conducted just a month later on 9 October 2001.

Inexplicably, the head of the NPA refused to allow the inclusion  in the search and seizure effort of the home of the chief beneficiary of Suspect No. 1's (S1's) and Suspect No. 2's generosity.

Be that sadly as it is, Suspect No. 3 had plenty of time between September 2001 and whenever in 2003 to produce a copy of the alleged loan agreement and show it confidentially to the completely non-transparent Parliamentary Standing Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests.

The head of the NPA (NDPP) can squarely be blamed for the fact that Suspect No. 2 (S2) is no longer Accused No. 10 and that Suspect No. 3 (S3) was never Accused No. 12.

Riddles

Note : As the riddles seem to be becoming too difficult, a multiple choice format is being adopted.

New(ish) Riddle

Just why did this happen?

1.  Because someone told NDPP that S2 should be allowed to complete their Corvette Combat suite contract first.

2.  Because someone told NDPP that S3 was too powerful and might have a good memory in 2009?

3.  Because NDPP was not stupid?

4.  Because NDPP was stupid?

5.  All of 1 to 3 the above?

Unsolved Riddle

Why did S2 have to pay S3 at the instance of S1 500 kZAR per year until ADS started paying dividends?

1.  Because students urgently needed their bursaries?

2.  Because S2 had already bribed someone else to get the Corvette Combat Suite Contract in the first place?

3.  Because S3 was in any case an occult shareholder in S1's business, but needed a splodge of wonga [#1] before ADS could afford to pay dividends and only S2 had the wonga after being paid 6 GUSD (US$ 6 billion) by the Taiwanese Government for selling them  a small flotilla of La Fayette frigates (poor old Captain Yin Ching [#2])?

4.  S1 was tired of paying Robin R20 000 to R30 000 per month himself and wanted S3 to start paying himself, but never then had the available wonga and had to call on S3?

5.  All of 2 to 4 above?

#1  Acknowledgements to Simon Mann (may he get his daily ration of bread and water).

#2  Alas, he no longer needs any ration of bread and water.