Zuma's Defence Could Hinge on Shaik's Criminal Appeal Against Corruption Charges [Cape Times, 2006-08-04]

Publication: Cape Times Issued: Date: 2006-08-04 Reporter: Karyn Maughan Reporter: Reporter:

Zuma's Defence Could Hinge on Shaik's Criminal Appeal Against Corruption Charges

Publication	Cape Times
Date	2006-08-04
Reporter	Karyn Maughan
Web Link	www.capetimes.co.za

JOHANNESBURG : Schabir Shaik's looming criminal appeal could prove to be the making of Jacob Zuma's defence against corruption charges.

In a series of submissions before the Supreme Court of Appeal, Shaik's legal team has sought to portray Zuma as innocent of corruption for which he is charged *1.

And they have hinted that Shaik tricked Zuma into meeting with Alain Thethard (sic) *1, then a representative of the French arms company.

Zuma faces corruption charges with Thethard in the Pietermaritzburg High Court.

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 Thomson CSF Africa), in exchange for Zuma agreeing to protect the company from a potentially damaging inquiry.

But Shaik's legal team, headed by senior advocates Jeremy Gauntlett and Francois van Zyl, have disputed this.

In papers before the court, they argue that Shaik's deep friendship with Zuma may have motivated him to lie under oath about the way in which he had misused him to secure the money.

"It is important to note that there was no direct involvement *2 on the part of Zuma in reaching the alleged agreement," Shaik's lawyers stated.

The only evidence *3 showing that Zuma had had any involvement in the alleged agreement, according to Shaik's lawyers, was the controversial "encrypted fax" sent from Thetard to Thomson staff in Mauritius *4.

KwaZulu-Natal Judge Hilary Squires ruled that this fax - in which Thethard stated that "JZ" had validated a request by "SS" - clearly showed that Shaik, Zuma and Thetard had shared a common corrupt purpose.

But Shaik's lawyers have indicated that they will argue that this document was inadmissible.

If the fax was found to be admissible, they would argue that it was "nothing more than a report to the addressees. It is certainly not a request for payment or an instruction that payment be made" *4.

Referring to numerous payments Shaik made to Zuma, most of which Shaik has admitted to making, Gauntlett and Van Zyl argue that Squires "erred" in not accepting that the payments - estimated by Shaik to amount to R880 000 - were loans and gifts made out of friendship.

The relationship between Shaik and Zuma was "special" *5, not corrupt, they stated.

Shaik's appeal will be heard between August 21 and 25.

With acknowledgements to Karyn Maughan and Cape Times.

*1      A belated and desperate attempt to dissociate his political top-cover. If the top cover is blown, then there's no chance of a presidential pardon in 2009 and less chance of early parole, etc.

How can Zuma have been tricked in giving a pre-agreed encoded signal? Zuma was also involved in many previous meetings with both Thomson-CSF and Nkobi Holdings to discuss shareholding, etc.

A very strong likelihood (on the balance of probabilities) is that Zuma holds and effective, albeit occult, shareholding in ADS (20% of 20%, i.e. 4%) via a special purpose vehicle, probably Clanwest Investments (Pty) Ltd. This would be why the 500 kZAR per year bribe for ongoing protection and support for Thomson-CSF was limited to until ADS started paying dividends.

*2      So a face to face meeting and giving of a pre-arranged encoded declaration is indirect?

Who's been smoking what?

*3      A red hot, smoking AK-47 with fresh paw prints all over it.

But not the only evidence :

Thetard's diary shows he met with Zuma on 11 March 2000;
Shaik admitted in his oral evidence that Zuma was at the meeting, but that this actually took place during the late afternoon of 10 March 2000;
Zuma was indeed in Durban at the time.

But there's more :

Zuma's electronic diary will indicate where he was during 10 to 11 March 2000, but the presidency has declined to release this on the grounds that it is classified.

Not true : Thomson-CSF International CEO and chairman Jean-Paul Perrier and Thetard direct superior Yann de Jomaron; the fax was sent to Thomson-CSF head offices in Paris.

*4 Thetard never had the authority within Thomson-CSF to personally authorise payments of over FF500 000. This authority vested in the CEO, i.e. Perrier who could authorise payments up to FF10 million. After FF10 million a committee of senior executives had to authorise such payments.

So while the fax might not have been an instruction to pay, it most certainly was a request to the relevant authority to make a payment concerning a matter about which the recipients or at least one of the recipients had previously been made aware.

In any case, the payments were authorised and special channels were put in place to facilitate the flow of funds. The funds indeed started to flow, but ceased once the conspirators realised the game was up.

How much more compelling can the proven evidence get?

*5 Indeed the relationship between Shaik and Zuma was "special" - special purpose vehicle to get wonga out of foreigners' hands into beneficiaries' hands, but actually and more sadly to get wonga out of South African taxpayers' hands into beneficiaries' hands.