Heath joins Zuma camp

The man once considered the country's top corruption buster, former judge Willem Heath, has embedded himself in Jacob Zuma's camp.

In a surprise statement yesterday, the man once dubbed a "white-collar crime crusader", announced that he had been hired by the former deputy president to "advise him on the merits of the case against him".

He said this had been agreed at a meeting with Zuma yesterday to discuss Zuma's possible criminal trial on charges of corruption.

Heath said he had agreed to accept a brief as legal counsel, but, while he would consult Zuma's legal team, he would not be part of it.

"I will not issue statements regarding my progress and all issues will be confidential," he said.

Zuma will make a brief court appearance in the Durban Magistrate's Court tomorrow on two counts of corruption.

They relate to allegations that he had a generally corrupt relationship with his financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, and that he accepted a bribe from arms deal preferred bidder, Thomson.

Shaik has already been convicted of the charges and next month is expected to apply for leave to appeal against the convictions and the 15-year prison sentence imposed by Judge Hilary Squires.

Reports are that Zuma has already hired top Durban advocate Kessie Naidu to head his legal team.

Yesterday, Heath, now an advocate who runs his own Cape Town-based consultancy, emphasised that his work for Zuma would be behind the scenes.

But it will certainly be valuable.

Heath headed the Special Investigations Unit - aimed at rooting out government corruption and recovering stolen money - for six years.

That part of his career ended when the Constitutional Court ruled that as a judge he could not head the unit. It was a violation of the separation of powers of the executive and the judicial branches of state, the court said.

Heath is no stranger to the arms deal controversy, or to the Shaik trial. It was his unit which Patricia de Lille and others wanted the government to appoint to probe the arms deal.

Heath, in evidence during the Shaik trial, said there was no objective reason why this had not happened.

Always outspoken, last week the former judge entered the fray which erupted after Shaik's conviction and Zuma's dismissal as deputy president, commenting that the then director of public prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka had a political motive to destroy Zuma.

In an article in a national Sunday newspaper, Heath said Ngcuka should never have decided not to prosecute Zuma but to prosecute Shaik.

He said that there was a good chance that Zuma could be acquitted, but said he would be "extremely hesitant" to be part of Zuma's defence team as an investigator "because I was a witness in the first case and I might be a witness in the second case".

In yesterday's statement, Heath said should the prosecution wish to call him as a witness, he would give evidence, as he had in the Shaik trial.

"I reiterate my view that it was unfair and may well be prejudicial that Zuma was not prosecuted with Shaik. His prosecution may well be tainted because Shaik was tried in his absence.

"Judge Squires made findings against Zuma which may have been different had they been tried together. Numerous statements have been made, many of which reflect on Zuma in a prejudicial manner," Heath said.

With acknowledgements to Tania Broughton and The Mercury.

*1   The SIU gathered and processed reams of Arms Deal evidence before handing it over to the Office of the Auditor-General when the President refused to give the SIU a proclamation to officially investigate the Arms Deal.

Mr Heath himself was involved in many ultra-sensitive meetings and had, and may still have, access to sensitive evidence on the Arms Deal, including the Corvette Combat Suite which overlaps both his new client's area of involvement as well as a major civil damages action by CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd which is in progress.

CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd had a number of meetings with both the SIU and even Mr Heath himself on a one-on-one basis and shared evidence and information with them.

This situation is a clear and untenable conflict of interest.