Schabir Shaik, convicted of fraud and corruption, will know by this afternoon if his next home will be behind bars in a local prison.

Judge Hilary Squires on Tuesday provisionally adjourned the handing down of sentence to 2.15 pm today. He advised the court that he needed time "to think about the sentence" but would try his best to deliver it this afternoon.

Earlier, defence advocate Francois van Zyl asked Squires to show compassion and mercy when sentencing Shaik.

He told the court that the punishment should fit the criminal as well as the crime, and should be fair to society.

To strengthen his request for clemency, Van Zyl made mention of the fact that Shaik is not only a first-time offender from a humble background but also gave many years of his life for the struggle against apartheid.

He went on to say that Shaik has already paid a huge price with the pressure and anxiety stemming from the accusations that have hung over his head since 2001 when his home was raided by the Scorpions.

Van Zyl mentioned that Shaik's conviction means that he will be disqualified from all his directorships at his Nkobi Group, which would be a huge blow to anyone, but especially for someone like Shaik, who built up the group on his own *1.

"Moreover, the Nkobi Group contracts to the public sector and now, with the conviction, the company in all probability will not be considered for such work," he said.

Van Zyl then urged the court to consider a lesser sentence than the prescribed minimum sentence of 15 years' imprisonment as there are substantial and compelling factors for this in Shaik's case.

He told the court that the first count of corruption is not a classic case of bribery.

Van Zyl explained that Shaik did not have direct intent to bribe Deputy President Jacob Zuma for his influence as the payments stemmed from their friendship when Shaik began loaning him money to help him out of his debts.

Furthermore, he explained, the court has not heard evidence that "Zuma interfered with any tender process to assist Nkobi". *2

Van Zyl told the court that these circumstances distinguish this case entirely from the classic corruption case, therefore it warrants a lesser sentence. The first count of corruption relates to payments made from Shaik to Zuma in exchange for his influence to secure business projects for the Nkobi Group.

Arguing that Shaik should not be punished too heavily for count two *3, which is one of fraud, Van Zyl said that Shaik signed below the line and was not directly involved with the falsified figures above the line in the company's financial statements.

Shaik was found guilty of being party to an irregular write-off of R1,2 million as development costs when in fact it was Zuma payments.

"Shaik was not really the author of this deception. It was designed and done by the accountants *4," Van Zyl said on Tuesday.

He said that when considering the second count of corruption, the court should bear in mind that Shaik did not instigate the R500 000 annual bribe from French arms manufacturer Thomson-CSF to Zuma in exchange for protection from a probe into the arms deal.

"It is important to note, it was not Shaik and his companies that agreed to pay Zuma R500 000, it was Thomson who offered and agreed to pay. From the court's findings, I understood that Shaik acted in common cause with Thetard and Zuma. He acted in a role of facilitating but was not the party that offered or agreed to pay," Van Zyl said.

He explained that as Shaik did not personally pay the money to Zuma, he actually played a lesser role than Thomson-CSF and should therefore receive a lesser sentence than the prescribed minimum sentence *5.

However, the state rejected all of Van Zyl's substantial and compelling circumstances and asked the court to impose a long-term jail sentence.

Referring to the first count of corruption, Billy Downer SC told the court that it should take into consideration that Shaik actually abused Zuma's friendship by buying him off.

Downer agreed that the corruption is not a classic case but reminded the court that it is more serious and "much worse" as one of the country's senior officials was involved.

Downer rejected Van Zyl's argument that Shaik played a lesser role than Thomson-CSF in the second corruption charge. He explained that evidence heard during the trial showed that Shaik persisted in obtaining the money from the French despite several letters that indicated that the bribe was not forthcoming.

After citing case law, Downer told the court that the state would be satisfied with a long sentence and 15 years' imprisonment would be just punishment.

With acknowledgements to Nivashni Nair and The Natal Witness.

*1 Not quite, there was a certain amount of assistance from, inter alia, Mac Maharaj, Jacob Zuma, Zwelie Mkhize and the ANC.

*2 How obtuse can argument actually get?

*3 Such a precedent would give the Inspecting Judge of Prisons, Mr Justice Hannes Fagan, enduring nightmares.

But the contractors building prisons might be well pleased - if one could get the work.

*4 PAAB - do your thing.

*5 This argument is illogical; it should read "should therefore receive a lesser sentence than the prescribed maximum sentence.

An argument that is logical is that the Facilitator should possibly receive a lesser sentence than the primary parties, i.e. the Donor and the Donee.

[But just because in this case the Donor and the Donee appear to be getting away scott-free, does not invalidate this argument. This would be a fallacy of cynicism - a new one for the book Prof. Govier?]

Riddle

What is the sum 15 + 15 + 15?

45 if consecutive, 15 if concurrent.