Publication: Mail and Guardian
Issued:
Date: 2006-09-01
Reporter: Sam Sole
Reporter:
| Publication |
Mail and Guardian
|
| Date |
2006-09-01
|
|
Reporter
|
Sam Sole |
|
Web Link
|
www.mg.co.za
|
This
week will see the climax of Jacob Zuma and the Thint group's bid to have the
graft case against them thrown out. Both claim their right to a fair trial has
been irreparably compromised.
Thint's case -- based on an agreement
between it and then prosecutions chief Bulelani Ngcuka in April 2004 -- is
probably stronger.
The agreement arose out of a meeting between Thint’s
lawyers, Ngcuka and then justice minister Penuell Maduna, when Thint was an
accused under an indictment served on Schabir Shaik. In papers filed this week,
Thint argues that it provided for the withdrawal of charges in exchange for an
affidavit by former Thint MD Alain Thétard about the “encrypted fax” he wrote.
Ngcuka later confirmed the deal in writing.
Thint argues that the deal
remains valid despite a subsequent affidavit by Thétard denying that the fax
outlined a proposed bribe to Zuma. It says that despite Thétard’s affidavit,
charges were withdrawn and the breach of the agreement was only raised in May
2006, after Thint was charged.
Zuma argues that delays in bringing the
case have been prejudicial and deliberate, and that the state has not explained
its failure to charge Zuma with Shaik preventing him from contesting Shaik’s
version under cross-examination.
Zuma’s lawyers argue that as the
“bribe agreement” between Thint and Zuma was allegedly encoded, there is an “obvious” possibility of fraud by Shaik
*1.
With acknowledgements to Sam Sole and Mail and Guardian.
*1 Too late, she cried.
Too
stupid, the rest cried.