Bloemfontein : Schabir Shaik's pleas for leniency were brushed aside by the five judges who heard his appeal yesterday.

In a stinging attack on corruption the five judges rejected Shaik's appeal against two 15-year jail terms and gave his trial judge Hilary Squires a resounding endorsement for giving him the minimum sentences.

The president of Supreme Court of Appeals Judge Craig Howie wrote: "The payments to Zuma, a powerful politician, over a period of more than five years were made calculatingly. Shaik subverted his friendship with Zuma into a relationship of patronage designed to achieve power and wealth.

"He was brazen and often behaved aggressively and threateningly, using Zuma's name to intimidate people, and particularly potential business partners, into submitting to his will.

"He sought out people eager to exploit Zuma's power and influence and colluded with them to achieve mutually beneficial results.

"In our view, the sustained corrupt relationship over the years had the effect that Shaik could use one of the most powerful politicians in the country when it suited him. In our view this is an aggravating factor.

"… it is clear that very soon after the advent of our democracy Shaik saw economic opportunities beckon and realised early on that he could use political influence to his financial advantage.

"The seriousness of the offence of corruption cannot be over-emphasised. It offends against the rule of law and the principles of good governance. It lowers the moral tone of a nation and negatively affects development and the promotion of human rights.

"As a country we have travelled a long and tortuous road to achieve democracy. Corruption threatens our constitutional order.

"We must make every effort to ensure that corruption with its putrefying effects is halted. Courts must send out an unequivocal message that corruption will not be tolerated and that punishment will be appropriately severe.

"In our view, the trial judge was correct not only in viewing the offence of corruption as serious, but also in describing it as follows: 'It is plainly a pervasive and insidious evil, and the interests of a democratic people and their government require at least its rigorous suppression, even if total eradication is something of a dream. It is thus not an exaggeration to say that corruption of the kind in question eats away at the very fabric of our society and is the scourge of modern democracies. However, each case depends on its own facts and the personal circumstances and interests of the accused must always be balanced against the seriousness of the offence and societal interests in accordance with well-established sentencing principles'," he wrote.

The two corruption counts carried minimum sentences of 15 years' imprisonment unless there were substantial and compelling reasons which justify a lesser penalty, he noted.

"… Squires J took into account all relevant factors including Shaik's 'struggle credentials'. He considered that far from achieving the objects to which the struggle for liberation was directed, the situation that Shaik developed and exploited was the very same that the struggle had intended to replace and that this whole saga was a subversion of struggle ideals."

The lower court concluded that it was left with no alternative but to impose the minimum prescribed sentence.

The judges could see no fault with the reasoning of Judge Squires in the first corruption count.

Dealing with the second count, the court considered the submission that he had only acted as a facilitator and "concluded that even if this were so the arrangement plainly suited his purpose".

Judge Squires had found that Shaik's first object was to "undermine the law and to thwart the investigation which would reveal his corrupt activities and to further intensify corrupt activity and at the highest level in the confident anticipation that Jacob Zuma may one day be president.

"Squires did not consider the fact that Shaik received only one payment of R250 000 pursuant to the bribe arrangement to be a mitigating factor."

Judge Squires had found there were no substantial and compelling circumstances to justify the imposition of a sentence other than the prescribed minimum.

"Once again, on this aspect, we can see no flaw in his reasoning nor can we fault his conclusion," Judge Howie wrote.

Shaik did not appeal against his three-year sentence for fraud.

With acknowledgement to the Cape Times.