Shaik Ruling Deals Blow To Zuma’s Political Aims [Business Day, 2006-11-07]

Publication: Business Day Issued: Date: 2006-11-07 Reporter: Karima Brown Reporter: Amy Musgrave Reporter: Ernest Mabuza Reporter: Linda Ensor

Shaik Ruling Deals Blow To Zuma’s Political Aims

Publication	Business Day
Date	2006-11-07
Reporter	Karima Brown Amy Musgrave Ernest Mabuza Linda Ensor
Web Link	www.businessday.co.za

NPA to decide whether to pursue former deputy again

Jacob Zuma’s ambitions to succeed President Thabo Mbeki next year were dealt a blow yesterday when the Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the corruption and fraud conviction of his former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik.

While time has run out for Shaik, who is required to report to jail tomorrow, Zuma’s lawyers are scouring the judgment in an attempt to prepare for what many say will be the inevitable reindictment of Zuma.

Mbeki fired Zuma from the cabinet in June following Shaik’s conviction for corruption and fraud.

However, Pietermaritzburg High Court judge Herbert Msimang struck Zuma’s case off the roll when the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) asked for another postponement.

The NPA is likely to re-charge Zuma after the appeal process contesting the overturning of search and seizure warrants relating to Zuma’s corruption case.

Zuma aides said the appeal was likely to be heard in May and, depending on the outcome, Zuma could be charged afterwards. At that time the ANC presidential race will be in full swing.

The succession race has rent the ruling party down the middle as opposing factions rally behind their candidates.

Coupled with this is the declining moral authority of the party as more details, including the alleged role of Mbeki in the arms deal, begin to emerge.

NPA spokesman Makhosini Nkosi said National Director of Public Prosecutions Vusi Pikoli was studying Shaik’s judgment.

He had not yet decided whether to charge Zuma again.

Centre for Policy Studies political analyst Aubrey Matshiqi said: “Hilary Squires’ judgment and the decision to uphold the judgment do not constitute evidence against Zuma.

“In a sense, the NPA is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t charge Zuma again. They have to decide between what is the lesser evil.” In the event the NPA did not recharge Zuma, it would merely reinforce existing conspiracy theories that the case against him was politically inspired and there was no case in the first place, Matshiqi said.

More damaging was that it might also create the impression that a “political settlement” had been reached among the protagonists in the ANC succession race, Matshiqi said.

Because the NPA could not afford to feed these perceptions, it would “therefore choose the lesser of the two evils” and recharge Zuma *1.

He said that for this, the NPA would need a strong case *2 and fresh evidence *3.

Matshiqi said that in political terms, the appeal court’s decision amounted to a setback for Zuma, despite his supporters urging that the court’s decision did not constitute evidence against him.

“The presidency of the ANC might be settled by the courts,” he said.

The 92-page judgment concurred with Squires, who sentenced Shaik to an effective 15 years’ imprisonment.

A full bench found that the acknowledgement of debt notes signed by Zuma in favour of Shaik were not “genuine”.

On the so-called encrypted fax, detailing a bribe to Zuma, they said it should be admissible as evidence.

The court also said the state had proved that arms maker Thomson corruptly offered to give a benefit which was not legally due to Zuma.

It stated that a section in the Corruption Act of 1992 did not expressly require communication of the offer to the person who was sought to be influenced.

“It follows that it is unnecessary to decide whether Zuma was aware of the offer.”

Shaik’s brother, Mo Shaik, told reporters in Cape Town yesterday that Shaik had been prepared to accept responsibility for the error of his ways with respect of the count of fraud, but not on the two corruption counts as he had always maintained that his relationship with Zuma was founded on altruism *4.

With ackowledgements to Karima Brown, Amy Musgrave, Ernest Mabuza, Linda Ensor and Business Day.

*1       There is no evil whatsoever in charging someone where prima facie evidence of a crime exists.

In this case there is relevant court quality evidence accepted by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court.

*2      There is already an extremely strong case - so strong that it is almost insuperable. No new evidence is required.

*3      If the later searches and seizures produce more admissible evidence, this should lead to new charges which should be the subject of another trial.

*4      This is plausible in respect of Count 1, but is invalid in respect of Count 3.