Publication: Sapa Issued: Durban Date: 2005-07-26 Reporter: Mariette le Roux Reporter:

Shaik Gave Zuma Money Out Of Camaraderie, Court Hears

 

Publication 

Sapa
COURT-N/L-SHAIK
Date

2005-07-26

Issued

Durban

Reporter

Mariette le Roux

 

Friendship and camaraderie, not self-interest, were behind payments by Durban businessman Schabir Shaik to former deputy president Jacob Zuma, the Durban High Court heard on Tuesday.

"The payments to Zuma started during 1997 in an attempt by (Shaik) to assist Mr Zuma to get out of the debt trap in which he found himself," defence advocate Francois Van Zyl, SC, told Judge Hilary Squires.

"Later the assistance was primarily aimed at the education of Mr Zuma's children. Not a single payment was linked to any specific act by Mr Zuma in the interests of (Shaik) or any of his companies."

Shaik is asking the court for leave to appeal against his conviction on two counts of corruption and one of fraud involving Zuma, for which he received a 15-year sentence in effect. Squires said he would give judgment in the application, which was opposed by the State, on Friday morning.

Van Zyl argued that the court had failed to take into account the enduring friendship between the two men, which he said was forged during the anti-apartheid struggle years.

"The court erred in rejecting the long-standing and deep-rooted friendship between (Shaik) and Mr Zuma as the reason why (Shaik) assisted Mr Zuma with his financial problems."

Prosecutor Billy Downer, SC, rejected this argument.

"The court's appraisal of the probabilities is far more nuanced than a simple choice between one or other cause."

On the first corruption charge, which entailed a "generally corrupt relationship" between the men and payments to Zuma of more than R1,2 million, Van Zyl said Squires had erred in finding Zuma was influenced to further Shaik's interests.

Shaik's Nkobi group of companies never succeeded in getting any government contract or tender in any of the instances referred to in the evidence allegedly involving Zuma.

There various facts supporting the conclusion that the payments were made in the continuation of a "innocent, non-corrupt relationship", Van Zyl argued.

He further contended it was not an offence to give a benefit for a person to use his political prestige, as opposed to his powers of office, to advance the business interests of the giver.

The 15-year-sentence imposed on Shaik on this count was "shockingly inappropriate", Van Zyl said. Shaik was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment on each of the two corruption charges and another three years for fraud, but the sentences were to run concurrently.

Zuma was subsequently relieved of his duties, and is to go on trial on related charges in October.

Neither Shaik nor any of his companies had gained anything because of the payments to Zuma, and no third party was prejudiced, Van Zyl said.

On count two, the fraud charge, he argued that Squires erred in rejecting Shaik's evidence that he had been unaware of the irregular writing-off of loan accounts on the books of his Nkobi group of companies. Some of this money went to Zuma.

The court wrongly rejected Shaik's evidence that he relied on his accountants to produce proper financial statements, and that he had been assured the statements were correct, Van Zyl said.

"We are dealing here with a potential crime. There was no actual crime," he said.

"The court erred in finding that the offence of fraud was proven beyond reasonable doubt."

On the second corruption charge, which deals with Shaik's alleged attempts to secure a bribe of R500 000 a year for Zuma from French arms company Thomson-CSF in return for protection from a probe into South Africa's multi-billion rand arms deal, Van Zyl said the court should not have allowed as evidence an encrypted fax allegedly detailing a meeting to arrange the deal.

It should not have attached any weight to the contents of the fax given the untrustworthiness of its author -- Thomson official Alain Thetard.

The court was also wrong in rejecting the alternative argument that Shaik might have acted in his own interests in arranging the deal, and had possibly done so without Zuma's knowledge, Van Zyl said.

He objected to the sentences imposed in each instance.

In counter-argument, Downer said there was no reasonable *1 prospect of another court coming to a different conclusion on Squires' analysis of the evidence.

Leave to appeal should not be granted merely because of a judge's natural reluctance to be seen to consider his own judgment as indubitably correct.

"The court ought not to grant leave simply because the matter is controversial or has elicited uninformed public criticism, as has been the case in the present matter," he said.

Shaik appeared in high spirits as he arrived at court in the morning clutching what appeared to be a string of prayer beads. He shook hands with police outside the court and greeted waiting journalists.

On his departure, Shaik declined to comment, side-stepping reporters' questions by turning to one, saying: "You have a lovely set of teeth".

He was accompanied by his wife Zuleikha, bodyguards, and brothers.

With acknowledgement to Sapa.

*1 Honest reasonability is the best policy.