Publication: Cape Times Issued: Date: 2006-11-13 Reporter: Wendy Jasson da Costa Reporter:

Judge's Alleged Statement about Shaik, Zuma A 'Technicality'

 

Publication 

Cape Times
Date

2006-11-13

Reporter

 Wendy Jasson da Costa

Web Link

www.capetimes.co.za

 

The controversy surrounding the statement that ANC Deputy President Jacob Zuma and fraud and corruption convict Schabir Shaik had a "generally corrupt relationship" was a "storm in a tea cup", according to prosecutor Billy Downer.

He was responding to queries after the judge in the Shaik trial, Justice Hilary Squires, wrote to a weekend newspaper denying ever using that line in his judgment.

Judge Squires's letter came after the Supreme Court of Appeal judgment against Shaik last week, in which this statement was again attributed to him. Shaik started serving his 15-year sentence for fraud and corruption last week.

Yesterday Downer, the prosecutor in the Shaik case, said it was the media which had first used that line, not Squires, but it made no legal difference, "nothing, zero".

He said the issue over who had coined the phrase was irrelevant because "ultimately" that was the finding of the court. "It's an argument without any substance. It makes no difference because that's in effect what he (Squires) found," said Downer.

University of KwaZulu-Natal law professor Robin Palmer said whether or not Judge Squires had used it in his judgment would not affect the merits of the case and that the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal which quoted the phrase in its judgment and attributed it to Squires could not be set aside as erroneous.

He said Downer was right in calling it a legal "storm in a tea cup" but the "ambiguous interpretation" of the phrase could have major political ramifications. "It is this ambiguity that will be exploited politically," said Palmer.

This was already evident after various organisations that supported Zuma are now saying Judge Squires had judged him even before he appeared in court.

Palmer said, on the one hand, it could mean that Shaik had aggressively exploited Zuma, while, on the other hand, it could mean that Zuma and Shaik were in a corrupt relationship and that they were both aware of it.

He said it was unusual for a judge to write a letter to the media and that Judge Squires must have done so because he realised that, after a year-and-a-half, the issue was still not being put into context.

Palmer said the issue highlighted how important it was for the media to understand judgments and legal findings and that issues should be contextualised and carefully and meticulously explained.

Palmer said if Zuma was recharged his lawyers could argue that the issue cast doubt on his prospect of having a fair trial.

Political analyst Adam Habib said it was a matter of "technicality" and that even if Squires had not said that Zuma and Shaik had a generally corrupt relationship, "the judgment does speak of inappropriate behaviour".

He said it was not a "card" that Zuma supporters should overplay because it could force Judge Squires back into the public domain to explain what he really meant and that would mean more bad news for Zuma.

Yesterday a Zuma aide said they would not be commenting on the issue.

Judge Squires could not be reached for comment.

With acknowledgement to Wendy Jasson da Costa and Cape Times.