'It's an Mbeki Plot' [The Witness, 2006-08-01]

Publication: The Witness Issued: Date: 2006-08-01 Reporter: Sharika Regchand Reporter:

'It's an Mbeki Plot'

Publication	The Witness
Date	2006-08-01
Reporter	Sharika Regchand
Web Link	www.witness.co.za

Zuma says charges a bid to end his political career

Former deputy president Jacob Zuma’s claims of a plot to thwart his presidential ambitions have raised questions on whether President Thabo Mbeki will have to be called to give evidence at the Pietermaritzburg High Court.

A blistering affidavit in which Zuma appears unexpectedly to make good on his promise to “have his say” in court, raised many such potentially explosive questions and implicated a host of the country’s most powerful figures in the alleged plot against him.

The current national director of public prosecutions, Vusi Pikoli, his predecessor Bulelani Ngcuka and Mbeki are some of the high and mighty who Zuma claims would be able to clarify circumstances surrounding the charges against him.

This was all revealed in Zuma’s affidavit in which he seeks a permanent stay of prosecution in his case or for it to be removed from the court roll.

Amid tight security, Zuma and his co-accused Thint represented by Pierre Moynot appeared before Judge Herbert Msimang and his two assessors Pietermaritzburg magistrate Hendry Sithole and Scottsburgh magistrate Zama Phillip Nkosi.

Thint seeks the same order as Zuma.

When Zuma, who faces corruption charges related to the multi-billion rand arms deal, entered the courtroom, dignitaries including KZN Premier S’bu Ndebele stood up.

The arms deal relates to the billion rand contracts concluded in the late 1990s by the South African Government to purchase aircraft and vessels for the Air Force and Navy.

Zuma was charged after Judge Hilary Squires found that he shared a “generally corrupt” relationship with his former financial adviser Schabir Shaik.

Squires found that Shaik paid Zuma R1.2 million for his influence to secure business deals for his Nkobi group. Zuma is also alleged to have accepted an annual bribe of R500 000, which Shaik facilitated from French arms company Thint for Zuma’s protection in the probe into the arms deal.

After arguments on the next court date for the matter to be argued since the defence only filed papers on Monday morning, in response to the state’s application to have the trial adjourned, the case was adjourned to September 5.

In his affidavit, Zuma said he has been touted as a potential presidential candidate when Mbeki steps down and, just as there are a number people who support him, there are just as many who don’t.

Zuma believes the charges against him were initiated and certainly fuelled by a political conspiracy to remove him as a role player in the ANC.

“I was thus charged on 29 June 2005 with two counts of corruption. These were in essence the mirror images of counts 1 and 3 against Schabir Shaik,” he said.

Zuma was dismissed as deputy president even before he was charged. He said he can only surmise that Pikoli briefed Mbeki on the upcoming charges, either on an earlier occasion or during the five days Pikoli was with Mbeki during a visit to Chile.

“It is after all inconceivable that the president would have instructed Pikoli to prosecute me, that is after all, the only other inference,” he said.

Zuma challenged Pikoli to reveal the new evidence that made him change his mind about bringing charges before the visit to Chile and whether he informed the president of this.

Only count three in the present indictment might, in any way, be directly and logically connected to and fall within the parameters of the investigation into the arms deal.

“I verily believe that, from the outset, these investigations were not geared towards establishing corruption in the arms deal *1, but indeed that this was used to ostensibly legitimise a wide-ranging investigation of my conduct and financial affairs in order to find some aspect which could be used to discredit me,” he said.

This has been an ongoing process in which the assistance of some members of the state’s intelligence services have been used, he alleged.

He said that in 2000, he became aware of an investigation against him by the National Prosecuting Authority, then headed by Ngcuka, on the arms deal.

“This I found peculiar because of the known fact that I played no part in the arms deal process,” he said.

He added that during the Shaik trial some state witnesses asserted that he welcomed and supported an investigation of the arms deal.

“There is not a single state witness involved in the arms deal process who contends that I ever even remotely requested or suggested that he or she act in an improper manner in the process or that I tried to influence the process or its outcome in any way *2,” said Zuma.

When he was being investigated, Mbeki was deputy president and a member of the cabinet and thus involved in the arms deal process, taking an active interest and part in it.

“[Mbeki] is a person who is ideally and obviously suited to depose to the absence of corruption in the award process. *3

“Once again, if he does so the prosecution must revisit and rethink the allegations that I was bribed to protect the French interests against exposure for corruption in the arms deal. There is no statement from the president in the docket contents handed to us. Nor is he on the list of witnesses,” he said.

In the midst of the prosecution’s investigation, a group of black editors from the press were called by Ngcuka, for an “off the record briefing”. Ngcuka briefed them about the investigation and sought to recruit them “in what I believe, was a furtherance of the conspiracy against me”.

He said that after he was investigated, Shaik was charged and Ngcuka said a decision was taken not to prosecute him as there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt.

However, Ngcuka’s announcement that the Scorpions had prima facie evidence of wrongdoing by Zuma but would not be able to secure a conviction took the humiliation to a new level. The implication is that the man is guilty but covered his tracks well, he said. *4

He said he was dismissed as deputy president as a result of the two charges brought against him.

He believes that Mbeki could not have made the decision to dismiss him simply because he was implicated in Shaik’s conviction.

“I was not an accused and the Shaik trial’s outcome was expected on the state’s version. If there was to be no prosecution, how could my situation then ever be resolved?” he asked.

He said the charges impacted severely on him as he lost the deputy presidency and is unemployed.

The present term of office of the ANC top structure ends in 2007.

The congress to elect new leadership will take place towards the end of 2007 and a pending trial will affect his chances of running.

“I have suffered very real and serious irremediable personal, social, economic and trial prejudice both as a result of the delays and the manner in which the prosecution has been conducted,” he said, adding that his right to a fair trial has been significantly infringed. *5

The state sought an adjournment because rulings on the legality of various search and seizure applications are still pending and they need permission to seek documentation from Thint’s Mauritius office.

Zuma said no one can accurately predict the finalisation of these matters, which could take two years.

With acknowledgements to Sharika Regchand and The Witness.

*1      Ad idem - I verily believe that, from the outset, these investigations were not geared towards establishing corruption in the arms deal.

Indeed I would go further, the investigation as it was constituted was specifically designed to exonerate the government.

*2      The classic straw man fallacy. This is not what the deponent is being charged with, he is being charged with being bribed in order to protect the briber from investigation and having their contract annulled, not with influencing the selection process.

*3      Another beautiful straw man.

But what evidence could Mbeki provide to counter the confirmed bribery agreement between Alain Thetard representing Accused No. 3 and deponent, Accused No. 1 as witnessed and facilitated by convicted criminal Schabir Shaikh.

*4      Actually, the implication is that the man is guilty. Bulelani, at the behest of other among us, tried to do a deal whereby the bagman was the fall guy, the Frenchman remained the free guy and the French company retained their contract while on the other hand the guilty guy kept a low profile for a long, long time time (at least until after 2009).

But no, what happens is that the guilty guy wants to be the main big guy, the French guy disavows his previous affidavit and Bulelani can't take the heat no more, no more. Meanwhile the du Plooy Twins, Downer, Steynberg and The Bloodhound are having none of this nonsense and impress upon the new National Director of Public Prosecutions that he needs to do what the law commands him to do, i.e. where there is prima facie evidence to act without fear or favour and let them prosecute.

*5      While others have suffered very real and serious irremediable personal, social and economic prejudice as a result of the conduct of the Accused in both the Zuma/Thint trials and Shaikh trials.