Publication: Sunday Independent Issued: Date: 2005-10-23 Reporter: Nalisha Kalideen Reporter:

Shaik Fights For New Appeal Hearing

 

Publication 

Sunday Independent
Date

2005-10-23

Reporter

 Nalisha Kalideen

Web link

 

It wasn't corruption, it was a 'special relationship' with Zuma, representatives argue yet again in papers before the court

Schabir Shaik never made payments to former deputy president Jacob Zuma with the intention of using his political position for his benefit, according to his attorney. Instead they were done openly because of the "special relationship" that had existed between the men.

This argument was submitted in papers to the supreme court of appeal (SCA) on Friday when Reeves Parsee, Shaik's attorney, responded to the state's objection to Shaik's application for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence on fraud and corruption charges.

Parsee responded on behalf of Shaik, who is in Saudi Arabia.

In the papers before the SCA, Parsee noted that because the state had not filed its answering affidavit on or before September 29, but did so only eight days later, Shaik had not been in a position to reply, as there were only two days remaining before he left for Saudi Arabia.

Earlier this year, Judge Hilary Squires sentenced Shaik to 15 years in prison on two counts of corruption and to three years on one count of fraud. The sentences are to run concurrently.

Shaik, who was Zuma's financial adviser, was granted leave to appeal on one corruption charge and the fraud charge.

Billy Downer SC, the state advocate, objected to the application to appeal, saying that there was no "reasonable prospect that a court of appeal would interfere in the sentences" already imposed. But Parsee noted that there was a reasonable possibility that a court of appeal may find that Squires had erred in his findings.

Downer had submitted that Shaik had caused a situation to occur "where he could use Zuma's name to his advantage, well knowing that Zuma would not contradict him".

Additionally, Zuma had the power to stop Shaik from using his name in his private business dealings.

But Parsee responded that there was no evidence before the court from which it could be inferred that Zuma was aware that Shaik referred to their relationship in promotional material or in any other manner in private business dealings.

"Why would [Shaik] then make payments to, or on behalf of, Zuma with the intention that Zuma should allow him to accord specific prominence to their relationship in promotional material, if Zuma was unaware of such references?"

Parsee also denied the state's allegation that Shaik, in contemplating making Zuma a shareholder in the Nkobi group, showed an "early corrupt intent" but instead was because of "the special relationship that existed between [Shaik] and Zuma".

Downer had stated in papers before the court that the fact that Shaik's payments to Zuma were made openly, and that no attempt was made to hide them, did not mean that they were made without corrupt intent.

Downer had pointed out that the payments were of "such a nature and magnitude that it would have been nigh impossible to hide".

But Parsee denied this. He stated that, right from the beginning, Shaik had been open about payments made on Zuma's behalf. Parsee also pointed out that most of the payments to Zuma were for "relatively small amounts which could easily have been accounted for in other ways, if [Shaik] was intent on hiding the fact that such payments were made".

Downer had said in papers before the court that "there is little, if anything, contained in this application which has not already been advanced before the trial court in the application for leave to appeal". He had also stated that, throughout Shaik's application, he had focused his appeal on the charges he had faced and not the evidence before the court.

In the papers before the SCA, Parsee denied this, stating that Shaik had been "at pains to point out that material facts were disregarded, or were not properly considered" by the court.

The state had opposed the application stating, among other things, that Shaik did not take up any of Squires's findings on his "credibility and demeanour".

Parsee pointed out that, despite this, the court had not completely rejected Shaik's testimony.

With acknowledgements to Nalisha Kalideen and the Sunday Independent.