Publication: The Witness Issued: Date: 2006-07-31 Reporter: Nivashni Nair Reporter:

The Road to the Corruption Trial

 

Publication 

The Witness
Date 2006-07-31

Reporter

 Nivashni Nair

Web Link

www.witness.co.za

 

Axed deputy president Jacob Zuma’s name was mentioned every day for months during Schabir Shaik’s fraud and corruption trial.

Today, Zuma will get the opportunity to defend his name in a corruption trial that was once described as the “trial of the decade”, although this description fell away after Zuma was tried and acquitted for rape.

Whether it is, as Zuma maintains, a conspiracy to ruin his political career and chance of being South Africa’s next president, Zuma will have to stand before court and explain why he was implicated in Shaik’s trial.

The legal teams involved in Zuma’s corruption trial have said the matter is a mirror image of the Shaik trial. But this time Zuma will be answering the questions about his relationship with Shaik.

In his judgment in the Shaik trial, Judge Hilary Squires said Shaik and Zuma had a “generally corrupt relationship”. He found that Shaik paid Zuma R1,2 million for his influence to secure business deals for his Nkobi group.

Zuma is alleged to have also accepted an annual bribe of R500 000, which Shaik facilitated from French arms company Thomsons-CSF (also known as Thint) for Zuma’s protection in the probe into the country’s arms deal.

Thint will stand trial with Zuma, represented by top Durban advocate Kessie Naidu, who had to withdraw his services from Zuma as he committed himself to Thint during the Shaik trial.

While the state presented documents and witnesses in the Shaik trial to highlight the “generally corrupt relationship”, the task of gathering evidence against Zuma has proven a challenge. *2

The trial will open with battles over the side issues, one being an application by the NPA to help speed up their investigation by authorising the removal of evidence from Thint’s Mauritian office.

Earlier this year, the NPA explained that the diary of Alain Thetard (the Thint SA operations boss and the alleged author of the encrypted fax that documented the bribe agreement), and several other documents were under lock and key in Mauritius and could only be released by the Mauritian government. The NPA asked the Durban High Court to write to the Mauritian government in a bid to speed up the process or the corruption trial could be delayed.

However, the presiding judge ruled that the matter should be handled by the trial judge and this will in all probability be dealt with before the actual start of the corruption trial.

The other issue that Thint wants to be cleared up is the application for further particulars from the state, which the NPA said earlier this year it was not in a position to furnish. In his judgment on that application, Judge Phillip Levinsohn also ruled that the matter should be heard by the trial judge, adding he doubted that the trial would begin properly this year.

The other issue to be looked at is the appeal against a ruling that the NPA’s search warrants used in raids on Zuma and his attorney Michael Hulley’s premises were unlawful and illegal.

With these issues in mind, the state and the defence teams have been in correspondence over an adjournment date. It is believed that the trial might be postponed until February.

With ackowledgement to Nivashni Nair and The Witness.

*2       Wrong - gathering evidence against Zuma has proven to be quite easy, 300 armed men in body armour and fast black cars at 06:00 a knocking at various front doors with search warrants from the judge president.

What has been a challenge for the Stare have been the numerous court challenges by the Defence to have the gathered evidence declared inadmissible or off-limits.

This is a stratagem or tactic employed by the Defence or order to create a artificial delay on which to then pin an application for striking down the charges.

The State needs to ensure that the trial judge doesn't fall for this and indeed that this backfires