In the Durban High Court yesterday the state called on Judge Hilary Squires to impose minimum sentences on Schabir Shaik, which could see him facing a jail term of up to 45 years.

Shaik was found guilty last week on two counts of corruption and one of fraud.

However, if any of the sentences run concurrently, the sentence would be shorter.

Prosecutor Billy Downer said the fraud count was “probably not the most severe” of the counts on which Shaik had been convicted.

Downer said society held “a public abhorrence” for corruption as a crime that threatened investor confidence and the sentence must reflect that view. He highlighted how Shaik had made a series of payments to Deputy President Jacob Zuma over nearly a decade and, with each payment, Shaik would have had “the ability to reflect and reconcile over his actions”.

“Zuma was a heartbeat away from the hot seat … and this case is without precedent in SA and possibly the whole world,” he said.

Downer argued that the depth and severity of Shaik’s corruption could not be ignored. He had “never shown remorse” for his actions. His behaviour was aggravated by “the calculated manner” in which he had pursued a R500 000 annual bribe from French arms company Thomson-CSF *1 for Zuma.

In mitigation of sentence, defence advocate Francois van Zyl reminded Squires that Shaik was a first-time offender, that he had suffered stress and high blood pressure during the marathon eight-month trial and in the preceding two years after the National Prosecuting Authority searched his companies’ premises, and that the guilty verdict now precluded him from holding company directorships.

“This in itself is a severe punishment,” Van Zyl said.

Shaik’s corruption was “not of the normal” variety whereby someone paid money in advance for a favour. Rather, Shaik had begun paying Zuma out of a genuine concern for a friend in financial trouble. Only later had that gesture shifted to one with corrupt intentions.

Van Zyl said Shaik’s case justified Squires imposing a lesser sentence than the prescribed minimum, saying “the punishment should fit the criminal and the crime”. Shaik had “come from a humble background … and had sacrificed part of his life (in the struggle against apartheid)”.

Shaik now faces another sleepless night as Squires deliberates on his decision. Squires provisionally adjourned the court until this afternoon for sentencing.

With acknowledgement to Nicola Jenvey and Business Day.

*1   If the Donee and Facilitator are not the truly guilty ones, then the Donor must be the truly guilty party because firstly they paid the bribe and secondly the reason that they paid was in order to secure the protection regarding their own past conduct; such conduct can only having been of a criminal or highly unlawful nature.