'Quite untroubled by using falsehoods to reach his goals'

Durban: "Not only convincing, but overwhelming" is how Justice Hilary Squires has described proof that businessman Schabir Shaik and deputy president Jacob Zuma have had a generally corrupt relationship.

As Judge Squires continued reading his 165-page judgment in his trial on corruption and fraud charges and as the careful reconstructions, meticulous cover-ups, and images of friendship and loyalty collapsed, Shaik - Zuma's close friend and adviser - appeared increasingly anxious and pale.

When, surrounded by his brothers, Shaik left the court, he looked ready to burst into tears, but bravely waved at onlookers.

Judge Squires said he could not accept that two documents setting out details of the deputy president's debts to Shaik were authentic - and they could safely be disregarded as proof that the sums paid to Zuma were loans.

With a few strong sentences, the judge reduced what Shaik had consistently claimed was a deep friendship with Deputy President Jacob Zuma to what the state had described as a "generally corrupt patronage".

It had begun, Judge Squires said, with Shaik realising the importance of political support and holding the general belief that Zuma was destined to become deputy president.

He found support for this conclusion in the evidence of one of Shaik's former business partners, Themba Sono, who had told the court about Shaik's using his "political connectivity" as a selling point for his company.

"The origin of Shaik's generosity was a desire to keep Zuma in politics," Judge Squires said, adding that at the time the payments began, Zuma was over his head in debt and worried about paying for the education of his children.

The judge found Shaik had then taken control of Zuma's finances, creating a "mutually beneficial symbiosis". There had been a pattern of Shaik's being ready to ask for help and Zuma's being ready to give it.

"Human nature suggested that generosity on this sustained scale must at least, after a while, become egocentric," Judge Squires said.

He dismissed Shaik's claim that the payments had been made in friendship. Referring to Shaik's frequent mention of his connection with Zuma, Judge Squires said: "Genuine friendship, we think, does not result in such blatant advertising."

Reinforcing suspicions that all was not above board was that the payment scheme made no business sense.

"(Shaik's company) Nkobi (Holdings) did not have any money," the judge said. "It was borrowing money to pay Zuma."

Even more curious was that Shaik kept up the payments, even when Zuma was earning R850 000 a year.

"It could only have been to allow Zuma to live at an even higher standard," Judge Squires said.

"This scheme smacks strongly of serving self-interest rather than a sustained concern."

Even if he was wrong and the money had been lent to Zuma, the payments were structured in such a way that they could still be regarded as a benefit under the Corruption Act, the judge said.

Shaik had, among other things, tried during his evidence to reduce the amount paid to Zuma.

"We do not believe him," Judge Squires said.

This had also very much been the judge's theme earlier yesterday when he explained why the court had not been impressed with Shaik's performance as a witness.

He was disturbed by Shaik's "lack of embarrassment or remorse" at being caught out lying and the impression that his "mentality was quite untroubled by using falsehoods to reach his goals", the judge said.

He found the state had proved a "convincing and overwhelming" case against Shaik on the first charge of corruption.

"The evidence plainly shows that Zuma was prepared to intervene on Shaik's behalf and that Shaik was ready to ask."

During the latter part of his evidence, it had become clear there had been attempts to cover up the financial relationship between Shaik and Zuma.

Judge Squires said it was not surprising that the state questioned whether two acknowledgments of debt and a revolving loan agreement between Shaik and Zuma were genuine.

The acknowledgments of debt were "clearly not what they purport to be and (were) drawn up later". The revolving loan agreement was "hardly any better".

He believed part of the motivation for writing off huge sums from Nkobi's books in the 1999 financial year was an attempt to conceal payments to Zuma, Judge Squires said.

Judgment continues today.

With acknowledgements to Estelle Ellis and the Cape Times.