Publication: Sunday Times Issued: Date: 2006-10-01 Reporter: Paddy Harper

Zuma’s Lawyer Attentive at Shaik Appeal

 

Publication 

Sunday Times

Date

2006-10-01

Reporter

 Paddy Harper

Web Link

www.sundaytimes.co.za

 

It was for good reason that Jacob Zuma’s attorney, Michael Hulley, spent most of this week watching the proceedings closely during the appeal hearing of Durban businessman Schabir Shaik.

Shaik’s appeal against his conviction on charges of fraud and corruption could determine the fate of the former deputy president, whose corruption case was struck off the roll by the Pietermaritzburg High Court last week.

If Shaik’s appeal on the corruption charge fails, prosecutors would be bolstered to refile charges against the ANC deputy president for allegedly receiving bribes from French arms company Thint in connection with the controversial arms deal and R1.3-million from Shaik.

However, victory for the state in the Shaik appeal would not mean the end of the state’s legal woes. The National Prosecuting Authority still has to contend with the series of appeals against court orders overturning the search warrants authorising raids on Zuma, his lawyers and his associates last August. The outcome of the challenges to the search-and-seizure raids would determine whether the state may bring additional charges of tax evasion and fraud against Zuma.

The significance of Shaik’s appeal to Zuma’s fortunes became clear on the very first day of the appeal hearing when the men’s relationship came under scrutiny.

If Shaik is even partly successful, this will greatly undermine the state’s bid to charge Zuma again.

Appeal Court Judge President Craig Howie and his deputy, Judge Lex Mpati, presided over a full Bench of five to hear Shaik’s appeal.

Thousands of pages in documentation have been handed in to the appeal court.

The five judges will have to rule on the appeal that not only will decide whether Shaik must go to jail, but whether Zuma’s bid to succeed President Thabo Mbeki is still on track.

Shaik was found guilty in 2005 of two charges of corruption and one of fraud, and sentenced to an effective 15 years’ imprisonment.

On the first corruption conviction, Shaik’s counsel, Jeremy Gauntlett, SC, seemed to have made heavy going of convincing judges that Squires had erred by failing to differentiate between Zuma’s role as deputy president and then MEC for Economic Affairs in KwaZulu-Natal.

Gauntlett argued that the four interventions Squires found Zuma had made for Shaik in return for pay could not be used to establish a pattern of corrupt behaviour.

But Judges Howie, Mpati, Mohamed Navsa, Piet Streicher and Jonathan Heher clearly felt differently, forcing Gauntlett to concede that Zuma’s political roles “triangulated” into a single political entity.

They were not convinced by Gauntlett’s argument that Shaik and Zuma’s relationship was “special” and that the payments were an act of altruism, not a bid to buy Zuma and his name for business purposes.

They also forced Gauntlett to concede that it was highly “improper” for Zuma to have been paid by Shaik while occupying public office.

Shaik’s other advocate, Francois van Zyl, SC, also battled to convince the judges that it was Shaik’s accountants, and not the flamboyant Durban businessman, who were responsible for the illegal write-off.

Though the case does not affect Zuma directly, if the judges overturn this conviction, the state’s case against Zuma suffers a blow and Thint will be off scot-free *1.

The appeal was a far cry from Zuma’s court appearance the previous Wednesday: no crowds, no political rhetoric, no conspiracy claims and no eye-gouging in court by defence advocates.

With acknowledgements to Paddy Harper and Sunday Times.


*1       Anyone have one of those long, thin steel things some Japanese preferred round about August 1945?