Family to be in court with Schabir

Durban: Security at the high court here is to be beefed up today as Justice Hilary Squires begins to deliver what is expected to be a two-day judgment in Schabir Shaik's trial on charges of fraud and corruption.

Journalists wanting to attend the judgment have been warned to apply for accreditation or face being refused admission to courtroom A.

"We appeal to the public to watch it on TV - it's more audible... it also mitigates the danger of the court being delayed because there's chaos outside,'' Makhosini Nkosi, spokesman for the National Prosecuting Authority, said yesterday.

Judgment is expected to begin at 2.15 this afternoon. It is to be broadcast live on e.tv, SABC2 and Radio 702.

Evidence and argument in Shaik's long trial, which began in October, were concluded on May 4.

Shaik said yesterday he would comment only once judgment had been delivered.

"We believe in the integrity and independence of the judicial system," said Shaik's brother, Mo.

They had no doubts about this, especially considering the way in which the trial had been conducted and the attention Judge Squires had given to detail, he said.

He and his family, including his brothers Chippy and Yunis, would be in court to support Schabir.

"It will be a gathering of the Shaik clan. It's a very trying time for us. The least we can do is be there for (Schabir)," Mo said.

He wished to convey his thanks to all those "ordinary people" who had sent messages of support to his brother.

The prosecution, led by Billy Downer, SC, based its case on the allegation that a corrupt patronage existed between Shaik and his long-time friend, Deputy President Jacob Zuma.

Judge Squires will have to consider a number of points.

In count one, the state said that there was a "general corrupt relationship" between Shaik and Zuma. Shaik says he helped Zuma financially out of friendship.

To decide who is right, the court will have to answer a number of questions, chief of these whether payments, adding up to about R1 million, made by Shaik to Zuma were bribes or financial assistance.

Were the payments donations or loans?

Do the payments qualify as a "benefit", as defined in the Corruption Act?

To what extent were the payments intended as a reward?

The state insisted during final argument that, should the court find the payments were a loan, Shaik be convicted of corruption anyway.

"A loan facility itself may be a benefit. An interest-free loan is an added benefit. The fact that interest payments are deferred is an added benefit... The fact that capital repayments are deferred is an added benefit," Downer argued during closing argument.

"The provision of loans without security is not a usual commercial practice with banks.

"Shaik has admitted that he would not enforce the terms of the loan and nor has he done so."

In count two, the state says Shaik fraudulently asked for money paid to himself and Zuma to be written off in his companies' books. Shaik admitted that this took place, but said he had been misled by his accounting staff and auditors.

The court must determine whether Shaik knew about and asked for the write-off or whether he was misled.

In count three, Shaik is alleged to have solicited a bribe from French arms company, Thomson-CSF, for Zuma in March 2000.

In return Zuma, according to the prosecution, agreed to protect Thomson-CSF during investigations into the arms deal and to lend his future support to the company. To prove its case, the state has handed in a fax written by the Thomson representative at the meeting, Alain Thetard.

The state says the fax and surrounding circumstances are enough to secure a conviction.

The fax, according to the prosecution, sets out the bribe agreement.

The state also alleges that a series of subsequent letters and faxes were used to cover up the payments of the bribe money.

Shaik has said he has never seen the fax. He admits that there was a meeting between himself, Zuma and Thetard, but says that it was about a donation to the Jacob Zuma Education Trust.

Judge Squires and his assessors will also have to determine the answers to the following questions:

Does the fax correctly describe what took place at the March 2000 meeting?

Were the service provider agreement and the subsequent documentation part of a scheme to clothe bribe payments to Zuma "with an appearance of legitimacy"?

With acknowledgement to Estelle Ellis, Sapa and Cape Times.