Publication: Sunday Independent Issued: Date: 2006-08-06 Reporter: Karyn Maughan Reporter:

Zuma's Prosecution Hinges on Success of Shaik's Appeal

 

Publication 

Sunday Independent
Date

2006-08-06

Reporter

 Karyn Maughan

Web Link

www.sundayindependent.co.za

 

Schabir Shaik's looming criminal appeal could prove to be the most politically significant court case to be heard this year.

This is because, should Jacob Zuma's former financial adviser successfully challenge his conviction for fraud and corruption, the state's pending case against the former deputy president is certain to fall flat.

Already it is apparent 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 Alain Thetard, then a representative of the French arms company with whom Zuma now faces corruption charges 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 into South Africa's controversial arms deal. This money, the state argued, was part of a planned R500 000 a year that 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 Thetard to pay him R500 000 a 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 fraud against Thetard".

Given the deep friendship Shaik shared with Zuma, it would "not have been an insurmountable problem" for Shaik to convince Zuma to use the code word that would indicate to Thetard that he agreed to the deal, Shaik's lawyers added.

During his trial, Shaik claimed that he and Zuma met Thetard on March 10 2000 to discuss a possible charitable donation, but this explanation was rejected by KwaZulu-Natal judge Hillary Squires.

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

They further argue that it was unlikely that Zuma would have publicly supported an investigation into the arms deal - as he did after political and media commentators expressed concern over alleged corruption in it - if he had been a knowing participant in the corruption.

"Zuma's actions after March 10 2000 fit in with such a situation - that he did not know that he was supposed to have been bribed and that he had to protect Thomson against the arms deal investigation and support them in future projects… It is a fact that the investigations proceeded… Zuma also sent his attorney to Paris, one of his main concerns being whether Shaik had used his name to get money from Thomson," the lawyers said.

In his judgment on the corruption and fraud charges against Shaik, Squires identified four key episodes that he found were "examples of interventions by Zuma to protect, assist or further Shaik's business interests" in exchange for payments.

These episodes included Zuma's efforts to arrange a meeting between a British businessman and then minister of transport Steve Tshwete, and his alleged punting of one of Shaik's businesses as the ideal partner for a planned ecotourism school.

But, examining each episode one by one, Gauntlett and Van Zyl argue that: "Despite all the documents seized from Shaik and his companies and the huge investigation conducted by the state in this matter, the state could not show a single instance in which Zuma used or attempted to use any decision-making powers he might have had … to influence the award of any contract or tender or any other government work to Shaik or his companies."

Referring to numerous payments Shaik made to Zuma, most of which Shaik admitted making, Gauntlett and Van Zyl also 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.

Judge Squires was wrong to reject Shaik's evidence that the payments were made to assist Zuma financially after he confided to Shaik that "he was in dire financial straits and considered leaving politics", the lawyers stated in papers.

They also suggested that Zuma's financial woes had originated from his efforts to broker peace in Kwazulu-Natal during the 1990s, which ultimately resulted in him being caught in a "debt trap".

"Shaik, who was well aware of Zuma's role in stabilising the political violence situation in KwaZulu-Natal and the important role he still had to play in that regard, was of the view that Zuma's continued involvement in politics in KwaZulu-Natal was important for peace and stability in the region.

"As a businessman in the region, that was of paramount importance to him. Zuma was also a close friend and comrade. Against this background [Shaik] decided to assist Zuma financially and requested him not to leave politics."

Shaik's appeal will be heard on August 21-25.

With acknowledgements to Karyn Maughan and Sunday Independent.


This is all so pathetic.

Firstly, Shaikh has even yet been granted an appeal on all the counts. He has made an application to appeal and this still has to be argued and granted.

Secondly, the story about Shaik tricking Zuma to get money for himself. A Standard Two honoris causa could come up with a more plausible explanation than this. The facts are that Zuma met Thetard in a meeting facilitated by Shaik. Zuma gave Thetard his acceptance of the bribe by means of a pre-arranged encoded signal.

If the payment was a donation, then :
Also, the bribe meeting happened on 10 March 2000. By then Shaik's Nkobi Holdings was a 20% effective shareholder in ADS, which he himself owning about half of these shares. The corvette contract has already been signed on 3 December 1999 and effective date of contract (EDC) was set for the first week of April 2000 when Armscor would pay the advance payment of 10% to ADS. This would be about R130 million in the case of ADS and Thomson-CSF's share and therefore about R13 million for Nkobi Holdings and R6,5 million for Shaikh. Sure, not all of it would be available as cash, but some of it might be and it would also be a very good collateral for the bank if cashflow was tight and Shaikh need a loan. So, financially things were looking very rosy for Shaikh himself by 19 March 2000.

This being so :
Sorry, this don't make no sense at all and I'll be surprised if Shaikh is granted leave to appeal.

But this is the reason why when already squealing poverty, Shaikh has brought in the biggest legal gun of all, Adv. Jeremy Gauntlett SC. Only a gravitas like his would make the grumpy men from Bloemfontein even listen to this nonsense, let alone uphold the appeal.

And my bet is that all of this is being paid for by Thomson-CSF, because if Shaik finally goes down on appeal, then they (and Zuma) go down as fast as the proverbial lead balloon.

No expense can be too much for Thomson-CSF because this would be the first major conviction against them on serious bribery and corruption charges after many instances and attempts across the world.

One of the main reasons why new Thomson-CSF chairman Denis Ranque changed Thomson-CSF's name to Thales at a cost of millions of Euros was to break with the ignomity of the company's extensive history of bribery allegations against it.

Also, if there is this first conviction, Thales desperate attempts to break into the lucrative US defence market takes a multi-billion US dollar knock.

Finally, although relatively small cheese, Armscor should be invoking the Remedies in Case of Bribes clause in the corvette supply agreement and getting the South African taxpayer as nice R200 million plus discount on the combat suite.

Of course, Thomson-CSF also stand to lose their 60% equity in ADS in respect of an asset forfeiture ruling, sure to follow a successful prosecution.

I'm sure on the day, Advocates William Downer SC and Anton Steynberg will be the match of Advocates Jeremy Gauntlett SC and Francois van Zyl SC.

The contrary is too ghastly to contemplate.