Publication: Sunday Times Issued: Date: 2006-11-12 Reporter: Paddy Harper Reporter:

He ‘Went Out of His Way to Buy Influence’

 

Publication 

Sunday Times

Date

2006-11-12

Reporter

 Paddy Harper

Web Link

www.sundaytimes.co.za

 

The Supreme Court of Appeal judgment in the Schabir Shaik case this week could not have had a worse outcome ­ for Jacob Zuma.

Not only did the five-member panel of judges uphold Judge Hilary Squires’s conviction and sentence imposed on Shaik, but they found that Shaik paid Zuma what amounted to an “unlawful retainer” aimed at having the ANC deputy president undermine his constitutional duties ­ in order to punt Shaik’s business interests.

The court found that, in terms of the Constitution, as an elected government minister (both MEC and deputy president) Zuma could not undertake any other paid work; act in a way inconsistent with his office or in a way that exposed him to a conflict of private and official interests; or use his position to enrich himself or anyone else .

Shaik’s payments to Zuma ­ they totalled R1.29-million ­ were clearly aimed at ensuring that Zuma violate these constitutional duties to Shaik’s benefit and that of his companies.

“Making full allowance for the bonds of friendship there would understandably have been between them ... it is nevertheless clear that Shaik was keenly aware of the many business opportunities that the new political era offered, and anxious not to miss them.

“For his part, Zuma was seen by Shaik and by others in the know as destined for very high political office and possessed of the potent influence appropriate to that situation. Added to that was Zuma’s almost crippling financial vulnerability. He had heavy family commitments but wanted a smart and publicly visible lifestyle,” the court found.

“It is plain that the purpose of using the Zuma connection was not to advance their friendship. Its purpose was commercial exploitation. It found its most telling expression in Shaik’s constant assertion to potential contracting parties that [Shaik’s company] Nkobi was especially well-placed for inclusion in joint ventures because of its political connections, despite its lack of financial strength *1.”

The court found the state did not need to link the Zuma interventions in various deals with any single payment. Rather, the payments were an “unlawful retainer” paid as part of a “sustained corrupt” relationship.

The inference is clear: Shaik, in going out of his way to ensure he bought Zuma’s influence, in effect imposed on Zuma the role of the corruptee .

On the encrypted fax from Thint South Africa head Alain Thetard to his French bosses requesting a R1-million bribe for Zuma, things went just as badly for the axed deputy president.

The court found that the fax was indeed admissible in evidence, and effectively blocked a Constitutional Court appeal by Shaik on this matter by admitting it under different aspects of law to those challenged at the Appeal Court by his legal team .

The court also dismissed Shaik’s claim that the money was for a donation to the Jacob Zuma Education Trust, as there would have been no need for secretive language of the type used in the fax in this case ­ whereas “had the request been for a bribe as the fax indicates, the use of these expressions is understandable”.

With acknowledgements to Paddy Harpe and Sunday Times.


*1       Just like ADS's other bumiputerian shareholder, FBS.