Publication: Pretoria News Issued: Date: 2006-09-26 Reporter: Karyn Maughan Reporter: Jeremy Gordin

Appeal Court Judges Grill Shaik's Lawyers

 

Publication 

Pretoria News
Date 2006-09-26

Reporter

Karyn Maughan, Jeremy Gordin

Web Link

www.pretorianews.co.za

 

Swelled by Jacob Zuma's recent legal success in the Pietermaritzburg High Court, lawyers for Zuma's former financial adviser Schabir Shaik appeared to be looking forward to a friendly hearing of his fraud and corruption appeal.

That was yesterday morning. But, after yesterday's Supreme Court of Appeal hearing, it seemed they were wrong.

While Shaik's legal team came under heavy fire by a full Bench of the Supreme Court of Appeal (President Craig Howie, vice-president Lex Mpati, and judges Mohamed Navsa, Piet Streicher and Jonathan Heher), it appeared that yesterday marked a small reversal of fortune for the same State legal team which last week lost its bid to postpone Zuma's corruption trial.

Deputy director of public prosecutions Billy Downer SC may have spent yesterday afternoon being interrogated by the judges about why the so-called "encrypted fax" used to convict Shaik of corrupting Zuma was admissible, but the grilling he received was mild relative to that endured in the morning by Shaik's counsel, Jeremy Gauntlett SC.

Gauntlett began the hearing by stating that Shaik, who faces 15 years in jail if his appeal fails, would "reserve his rights" following Judge Herbert Msimang's ruling against the State last week.

In the light of the judge's criticism of the State's handling of the case against Zuma - who was charged with corruption 12 days after Shaik was sentenced - Gauntlett said Shaik felt his fair trial rights had been "severely infringed".

But Gauntlett encountered resistance from the judges when he tried to convince the court the relationship between Zuma and Shaik was "special" and not corrupt.

The payments that Shaik made to Zuma between 1995 and September 2002 were borne out of genuine concern on Shaik's part for Zuma's financial well-being and not out of cold-blooded opportunism, he said.

The judges seemed not to be convinced. "If you had a friend and he took over the payments of your debts, wouldn't you feel that he was expecting something in return?" Judge Streicher asked.

"I hope that he would not be unmoved by the odd broken car axle or school fees crisis," Gauntlett responded, referring to Shaik's evidence last year about what certain of his payments to Zuma had been used for.

Earlier, Judge Navsa asked Gauntlett whether it was "not improper" for a minister, deputy president or any public official to "meet with people interested in certain developments and put their weight behind one contractor" - a reference to Zuma's meetings with business people in whose projects Shaik wanted a stake.

Gauntlett agreed that the financial assistance of any person in a position of power fell into "snakebite territory" but, he said, that did not prove corruption.

Francois van Zyl, SC, who represented Shaik in his original trial in the Kwazulu-Natal High Court, also did not have an easy time arguing Shaik had been wrongly convicted.

Van Zyl maintained Shaik had been unaware that his accountants had written off debts of R1,2-million - identified as "development costs" - from his company's books. "You're suggesting the accountants just sucked it out of their thumbs?" Judge Streicher asked.

When Van Zyl claimed Shaik had not sought to identify what these costs were, Judge Navsa responded: "How credible is that? He's the CEO, main shareholder."

Then it was the State's turn to be grilled about the so-called "encrypted fax" and the meeting in which Zuma allegedly agreed to take a R500 000 bribe to protect French arms company Thint from a damaging inquiry by the government into the arms deal.

It was the State's case that Zuma indicated his agreement to take the bribe through an unidentified code.

But a bemused Judge Streicher seemed unwilling to accept that this had been adequately proven.

"What happened at that meeting? They spoke in code ... but we don't know what the code was, we have no idea ... But you expect us to find that Mr Zuma agreed to a bribe. On what basis do we find that that was Mr Zuma's understanding?" The appeal continues today.

With acknowledgement to Karyn Maughan, Jeremy Gordin and Pretoria News


*1      The snake has bitten - this time another deputy president.