Publication: Beeld
Issued:
Date: 2006-07-22
Reporter: Adriaan Basson
Reporter:
Mnr.
Jacob Zuma suggereer in ’n beëdigde verklaring die berugte gekodeerde Franse
faks en omkoopnota, wat hom regstreeks by korrupsie betrek, is
vervals.
In die verklaring van 160 bladsye, wat gistermiddag laat by die
Pietermaritzburgse hooggeregshof geliasseer is, beweer Zuma “daar is iets
omtrent die beweerde handgeskrewe dokument” en die “beweerde” faks waaroor die
staat hand en tand sal baklei om geheim te hou.
In nóg ’n paragraaf sê hy
“as die faks eg was” en gaan dan voort om die staat te kritiseer vir die
“geheimsinnige” wyse waarop dié dokument in sy ondersoek hanteer is.
Zuma
sê verder in sy verklaring:
) Pres. Thabo Mbeki het hom “gevonnis” deur
hom as adjunkpresident af te dank nadat hy in sy afwesigheid saam met Schabir
Shaik verhoor is;
) Hy gaan die hof op 5 September vra dat sy en die
wapenfirma Thint se sake geskei word;
) Die vier mense wat beëdigde
verklarings namens die staat afgelê het – oudmin. Penuell Maduna, advv. Vusi
Pikoli, Bulelani Ngcuka en Leonard McCarthy – praat nie die waarheid nie,
en
) Hy erken hy het nie regstreekse bewyse dat Pikoli deel is van ’n
komplot teen hom nie, maar dat hy (Pikoli) nie deel van ’n komplot hoef te wees
om “onbehoorlik” op te tree nie.
Maar die mees omstrede aantyging in Zuma
se verklaring, waarop hy antwoorde verskaf in reaksie tot Maduna, Pikoli, Ngcuka
en McCarthy se verklarings, is sy suggestie dat die primêre dokument wat hom by
korrupsie betrek, nie eg is nie.
Zuma grond sy aantygings op die staat se
weiering om die oorspronklike geskrewe Franse “omkoopnota” in 2003 aan hom te
verskaf.
Volgens Zuma het die staat “om onbekende redes” nog altyd die
faks teen sy bors gehou en was hul redes vir die weiering om die oorspronklike
kopie aan hom te gee “ten beste onoortuigend, ten ergste
geheimsinnig”.
Die Franse faks was ’n belangrike bewysstuk in die
Shaik-verhoor en is deur regter Hilary Squires aanvaar as bewys van wat op ’n
vergadering tussen Zuma, Shaik en mnr. Alain Thétard, Thint se voormalige hoof,
in Maart 2000 in Durban ooreengekom is.
Daarvolgens stem Zuma in tot
omkoopgeld van R500 000 per jaar in ruil vir die beskerming van Thint teen ’n
wapenondersoek en die bevordering van hul belange in Suid-Afrika.
Me.
Sue Delique, Thétard se voormalige sekretaresse, het in die Shaik-verhoor getuig
hy het vir haar ’n handgeskrewe nota gegee om te tik en in ’n gekodeerde
weergawe na die Thales-base in Parys te faks.
Thétard
erken in ’n beëdigde verklaring hy is die outeur van die “omkoopnota”, maar sê
dit was net los gedagtes wat hy opgefrommel het en ontken dat hy Delique opdrag
gegee het om dit te tik en te faks. *1
’n Forensiese ontleder het
getuig daar is geen bewyse dat die nota opgefrommel is nie en ’n rekenaarskyfie
is as bewysstuk aanvaar dat Delique die faks in 2000 op Thint se rekenaars getik
en na Frankryk gefaks het.Met erkenning aan Adriaan Basson en Beeld.
*1 This is not quite correct.
Thetard admitted in his first affidavit that he was the author of the encrypted
fax. He then authored a subsequent affidavit whereby he denies the apparent
meaning of the first affidavit.
This is one scaly Frenchman.
But
the fax is not the only key evidence that convicted Scabir Shaik on Count 3 and
should convict Jacob Zuma and the two Thints.
Schabir Shaik admitted that
the meeting of 10 March 2000 actually took place and that a transaction of R500
000 per year until ADS started paying dividends was agreed between Zuma and
Thint in Shaik's presence, but that this money was in respect of a donation to
the Jacob Zuma Education Trust. The trial judge found this explanation to be
incredible and rejected it out of hand.
The trial judge in the
Zuma/Thints trial is also unlikely to find this explanation
credible.
Other evidence also puts Thetard in Durban on 10/11 March 2000.
This is his diary entry for that time which shows that he planned to have a
meeting with Zuma on the morning of Saturday, 11 March 2000 (the meeting was
subsequently moved to the later afternoon of Friday, 10 March
20000.
Other evidence shows that Zuma was in Durban at the same time.
Delique's evidence, other than typing the fax, was that Thetard made the trip to
Durban by air.
Zuma lied to Parliament that he had met Thetard in or
near Durban on or about 11 March 2000. If he's had the donation meeting, why did
he need to lie.
Some of the R1 000 000 payment, R250 000, actually flowed
to Zuma via Mauritius and Nkobi Holdings, but then the payments
stopped.
If Thomson-CSF made the donation then :
- why did the agreement need to be made by a pre-arranged encoded signal?
- why did it not publicise its generosity in the media and on its website?
- why did the donation stop after only paying a quarter of the agreed amount?
- why did they not claim it as a tax deduction?
- why did the Jacob Zuma Education Trust not record it in their books of
account;
- why was the payment not made directly from Thomson-CSF in France or
Thomson-CSF South Africa?
- why was the payment made through Nkobi Finance and not directly to Jacob
Zuma Education Trust?
It's all just too fanciful to be true and on the
balance of probabilities each of the points favour the acceptance of the literal
meaning of the encrypted fax. In total this must add up to a finding beyond a
reasonable doubt. Judge Hilary Squires found the evidence to
overwhelming.