While top presidential aides remain mum about President Thabo Mbeki being dragged into the Jacob Zuma corruption trial, the president is on record as saying he does not see the need to be called as a witness.

He has also questioned the damage it may do to the institution of the office of the president if the head of state was dragged into court.

In a rare domestic print interview in February this year, Mbeki was asked about news reports that Zuma, might call him as a defence witness.

'Anybody who is charged in court is entitled to defend themselves' Five months later Zuma has claimed in an affidavit in the Pietermaritzburg High Court that Mbeki is one of the only people able to clarify whether any corruption was involved in the arms deal.

The affidavit refers, among other things, to a letter written in January 2001 to then standing committee on public accounts chairperson Gavin Woods, in which it was stated that there was no need for the Heath Special Investigating Unit to investigate the arms deal.

The letter was signed by Zuma in his capacity as leader of government business and is the basis for the allegation that, in return for a bribe, he gave French arms company Thint protection against a probe into the arms deal.

However, Zuma states in his affidavit that the letter was not composed or drafted by him, but came from the president's office, with instructions to sign it. Both Cosatu and the Independent Democrats this week called for Mbeki's role in the arms deal to be investigated by the Scorpions.

On Wednesday, however, top Mbeki aides, including Minister in the Presidency Essop Pahad and chief director of communications Murphy Morobe, were not prepared to comment.

'It is a very simple matter and straightforward' Presidential spokesperson Mukoni Ratshitanga would only say the Presidency had taken a decision not to comment on statements made by Zuma. "The matter is sub judice as it is before the courts."

In his interview in February with Independent Newspapers, Mbeki said: "Anybody who is charged in court is entitled to defend themselves to the best of their ability. If there is certain information in the hands of the government, which would help the defence, certainly in terms of telling the truth - conveying the truth to the court - I think the government should co-operate with that, including the president."

However, he did not see the need for him to appear as a witness.

"As I have heard this matter raised, the specific reason why, for instance, the president might be asked to come to court, I do not believe it requires that at all in reality."

The government had been surprised during last year's Schabir Shaik trial that the defence had not asked the Presidency for the information. The prosecution, on the other hand, had approached the Presidency.

It had wanted access to the executive code of ethics, because it needed to provide evidence in court about money Zuma may or may not have received, Mbeki said.

Presidency director-general Frank Chikane had replied that while he could give the information, he could not physically hand over the documents, because only the Public Protector was entitled to this in terms of the law. Chikane had relayed the information contained in the register, Mbeki said.

Chikane had subsequently observed that had anyone bothered to ask about the letter written to Woods, he would have responded in the same way.

"He said that if they had asked what happened in this particular matter, we would have explained. It is a very simple matter and straightforward. That particular communication says 'the president and I have decided as follows'.

"It is actually in the communication, there is nothing hidden... Why the defence did not ask us to supply this information, I don't know. And certainly, if they ask us now to supply this information, I don't think we would resist that. It would not be a problem."

Mbeki noted, however, that there were certain restrictions with regard to the kind of information sought, particularly in terms of confidentiality of cabinet minutes.

"I mean to the extent that the defence feels that there is certain information that is in the hands of government - that if that information is not given it will prejudice their case - then I think the government should co-operate. There is no major problem about that."

Mbeki said he was puzzled about the issue, given that the letter itself made clear that it was "on the request of the president" and "the president and I".

"So it is not anything that we sought to hide."

Mbeki also said he could "honestly not recall" whether he met representatives of French arms company Thomson-CSF during a visit to Paris in 1998.

Asked whether he would consider being a witness, if he was personally asked, Mbeki said: "It depends. One of the things that we have to guard against is acting in a way that reduces the esteem, prestige, authority of this institution."

Mbeki used the analogy of British opposition politicians who, when travelling around the world, never criticise their prime minister. "They are the opposition, but they are not going to speak ill of the prime minister... It's to ensure the stability of this democratic system.

"However much they might hate the prime minister, this office is important. If we diminish its authority, you question the integrity and stability of this whole system. So I am saying that here in this country we have to be careful about things like that."

This article was originally published on page 8 of The Star on August 03, 2006

With acknowledgement to Angela Quintal, Boyd Webb and Independent On Line.