Publication: Cape Times Issued: Date: 2006-09-05 Reporter: Karyn Maughan Reporter: Reporter:

It May End Up Benefiting Shaik If He Falls on His Sword for Friend Zuma

 

Publication 

Cape Times
Date

2006-09-05

Reporter

 Karyn Maughan

Web Link

www.capetimes.co.za

 

Jacob Zuma's former financial adviser Schabir Shaik may fall on his sword for the former deputy president - but it will suit him to do so.

The spectre of Shaik's appeal against his fraud and corruption convictions is expected to hang heavily over Zuma's legal battle, scheduled to begin in the Pietermaritzburg High Court this morning, to have the corruption case against him permanently withdrawn.

Zuma will take his place in the dock before Judge Herbert Msimang with Pierre Moynot, the managing director of French arms company Thint Holdings (Southern Africa).

Thint is accused of having offered Zuma a bribe of R500 000 a year, facilitated by Shaik, in exchange for his silence *1 during a probe into the country's multi-billion rand arms deal.

Shaik's appeal is set to begin in Bloemfontein's Supreme Court of Appeal on September 25.

It is already apparent, however, that Shaik's legal team - senior advocates Jeremy Gauntlett and Francois van Zyl - will argue that Zuma was wholly innocent of any of the corrupt practices for which Shaik was convicted.

And they have hinted that Shaik tricked Zuma into meeting with Alain Thethard, then a Thint representative.

During Shaik's trial, the state alleged that Zuma was knowingly involved in Shaik's solicitation of a R250 000 bribe from arms company Thint (then known as Thomsom CSF Africa), in exchange for Zuma agreeing to protect the company from a potentially damaging inquiry into South Africa's controversial arms deal. This money, the state argued, was part of a planned R500 000 a year which would be paid to Zuma for his support.

But Shaik's lawyers have argued that the state failed to prove this beyond reasonable doubt. "If Shaik had merely used Zuma to convince Thethard to pay him R500 000 per year … without Zuma's knowledge, Zuma and Shaik did not commit the (corruption offence) in question," they argued, adding that Shaik "may however have committed a fraud against Thethard".

Under the Minimum Sentences Act, Shaik could receive a five-year sentence for such fraud - one-third of the 15 years he was sentenced to for corruption by KwaZulu-Natal High Court Judge Hilary Squires.

Shaik's lawyers have also argued that Shaik's friendship with Zuma may have motivated him to lie under oath about the way in which he had misused his friend's name and profile to secure the money.

Zuma's defence team - senior advocates Kemp J Kemp and Jerome Brauns - have argued that he would have been "exonerated" had he been charged alongside Shaik. They further argued that they would have no hesitation in cross-examining Shaik to prove that he had "conned the French concerns out of some R500 000 in a simple fraud to enrich himself *2".

Zuma's legal team also alleges the state's decision not to prosecute him together with Shaik in August 2003 was a strategy to convict him in the public eye "in absentia" and then "sentence" him to dismissal from his position as deputy president.

According to Zuma's defence, the delay in prosecuting Zuma was a deliberate act by the state which would cost him about R3 million.

With acknowledgements to Karyn Maughan and Cape Times.


*1       Not his silence, his protection.


*2      Not only is this fable so far fetched as to be incredible, it was not extended as an innocent explanation until the very end of the Shaik trial - to late and too stupid, they cried.

Shaik also got 15 years for the first count of corruption and so won't benefit by getting Count 3 changed to fraud and getting 5 years.

But 5 years is only the minimum and he could get 10 years or even 15 years for this count as well

Another judge, sickened by corruption and fraud might just make the new sentence for fraud run consecutively and not concurrently with the other sentences.

Plus Shaik might well have new charges of perjury and defeating the ends of justice laid against him and another judge might give him very harsh sentences, consecutive with the others, for trying to mislead the court.

Another trial for fraud, perjury and defeating the ends of justice, would cost him alot more money.

And if he loses the appeal, it won't keep him out of prison - he will appear in the new trial in prison overalls.

Far better to take the punch now and get 2/3rds off for good behaviour while letting those Prodiba billions earn big interest for an after prison life of cigars, koi fish and pitter patter of 6 years old children.