Publication: The Witness
Issued:
Date: 2006-11-14
Reporter: Sapa
Reporter:
Apologies
and explanations after Squires says he never used words ‘generally
corrupt’
Apologies and explanations flowed yesterday after Judge
Hilary Squires’ denial that he found the relationship between Jacob Zuma and
Schabir Shaik to be “generally corrupt”.
In Bloemfontein, the Supreme
Court of Appeal (SCA) said it erred in ascribing the phrase to Squires, but
added this did not feature in its judgment in Shaik’s
criminal appeal.
The Congress of SA Trade Unions apologised to
Squires for comments made about his judgment, saying they were based on “false
media reports which put these words into his mouth”.
The National
Prosecuting Authority (NPA) said Squires’ denial had no legal implications.
Squires unleashed a storm when he denied in
a letter published in a weekend newspaper ever saying that the relationship
between Shaik and the former deputy president had been “generally corrupt”.
Squires convicted Shaik, former financial adviser to Zuma, on charges of
corruption and fraud in the Durban High Court in June last year.
Since
then, the judge has been quoted in several media reports as having said in his
judgment that a “generally corrupt relationship” *1
had existed between Zuma and Shaik.
Last week, the SCA dismissed Shaik’s
appeal against his fraud and corruption convictions. A ruling was also made on
an appeal related to the seizure of Shaik’s assets.
The SCA came under
fire yesterday for having attributed the phrase “generally corrupt relationship”
to Squires, with Cosatu demanding the resignation of the appeal court judges.
Cosatu also insisted on Zuma’s re-instatement as deputy president,
saying his dismissal from this post was justified on the basis of the remarks
wrongly attributed to Squires.
A statement from the office of the SCA
registrar said the court’s “misattribution” of the phrase “generally corrupt
relationship” occurred only once in its judgment last week.
“The quote
is to be found only in the introduction to the court’s subsidiary civil judgment
on the forfeiture of Shaik’s assets,” read the statement.
“As in the
case of all appeals, the SCA made its own independent findings. They are based
on an exhaustive review of the evidence and the record of the trial court this
is apparent from the SCA’s extensive judgment.”
Cosatu said the media
should also apologise to Squires “for the damage their misreporting of the
judge’s words has inflicted on the people involved, especially Jacob Zuma”.
Spokesman Patrick Craven added: “So too should all
the commentators and analysts who based their observations on these false
reports *2”.
Craven said these reports had damaged Zuma’s
reputation and prejudiced his chances of a possible fair trial against
corruption charges.
“There is now an even stronger case for dropping all
these charges, as Cosatu has been demanding, given that a fair trial is now out
of the question.”
The judge’s comment also negated the arguments that
were used to justify Zuma’s dismissal, said Craven.
“He should therefore
be immediately reinstated to his position.”
The NPA indicated that its
decision on whether or not to prosecute would not be swayed by Squires’ denial.
“As far as the NPA is concerned, Judge Squires’ comments have no legal implications for any former, current or future criminal
matters whatsoever, said NPA spokesman Makhosini Nkosi.
“The
Supreme Court of Appeal’s November 6, 2006 pronouncement is the final authority
on this matter. Any future NPA decision in this regard will be guided by the
decision of the SCA.”
With acknowledgements to Sapa and The Witness.
*1 Shaik and Zuma did not have a
"generally corrupt relationship", they had a “mutually beneficial symbiosis”
which resulted in an "overall corrupt relationship".
This is now
worse.
*2 Not me, I only commented and analysed
Count 3 where the trial court and the SCA both concluded that Shaik, Zuma and
Alain Thetard had a specifically corrupt relationship.