'State must take statement from president'

Pietermaritzburg: Jacob Zuma says the man who sacked him - President Thabo Mbeki - could be the man to rescue him, if only the State would take a sworn statement from him.

In his affidavit filed in the high court here yesterday, Zuma said he stood accused of writing a letter which, in fact, had been drafted by the president's office and which he had merely signed.

The letter in question was addressed to Gavin Woods, then chair of the Parliamentary Standing committee on Public Accounts in which it was stated that there was no need for the Heath Special Investigative Unit to investigate the arms deal.

The letter forms the basis for the corruption charge against Zuma relating to allegations that, in return for a bribe, he gave French Arms Company Thint "protection" against a probe into the arms deal.

Zuma says the letter was not drafted or composed by him but came from the president's office with instructions that he sign it.

"There can be little doubt that even the most superficial investigation must have revealed that to the prosecution.

"The prosecution knew this from the outset and knew, when it drafted the indictment in this case, that it would give a very clear impression that the composing and signature of that letter by me, were exactly what I got paid for."

He said he had discussed the outcome of the Shaik trial with Mbeki in early June 2005 and had raised the fact that the court had been misinformed about the source of the letter.

"He agreed with me and undertook to put things straight …"

Zuma pointed to the fact that Mbeki, who was deputy president at the time, had played a part in the arms deal process, which a joint investigation by the auditor-general, the NPA and a parliamentary committee, had concluded was not tainted by corruption.

"Mbeki took an active interest and part in it and engaged with various role players.

"He has been scurrilously accused of being party to improprieties in this regard. I distance myself from these and condemn the accusations as false. However, he is a person who is ideally and obviously suited to depose to the absence of any corruption in the award process.

"And if he does, the prosecution must revisit and rethink the allegations that I was bribed to protect the French interests against exposure for corruption in the deal."

Zuma also placed his financial woes at the door of the "president's office", saying preparation for the corruption trial had already "cost millions" and resources were running dry. However, he had been stonewalled in his efforts to get state assistance to pay for his legal costs.

"The president's office ultimately decides on this. In the recent past, Dr (Wouter) Basson, General (Magnus) Malan and others were assisted because of their capacities as officers of the state at the time of the alleged commission of the offences," he said.

He had made a request for assistance many months ago, the response being that the State Attorney would act as instructing attorney and fees for a specifically named senior and junior counsel would be provided. "This was wholly unsatisfactory … the State Attorney had acted (against me) in the warrant applications and the counsel involved did not include any of the counsel who have always acted for me," Zuma said.

With acknowledgement to Tania Broughton and Cape Times.