Mauritian documents needed

Delay's in the appointment of a judge to preside over Jacob Zuma's corruption trial in July are hampering the state's attempts to obtain crucial documents from Mauritius - and will almost certainly result in the postponement of the trial for months, if not a year.

This became apparent on Friday, when the state attempted to secure an order from Durban High Court Judge Pete Combrinck under the International Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act, that the documents be handed over to the South African authorities.

Although the judge has yet to rule, it was clear he believed the issue had to be decided by the trial judge.

If he makes this ruling, it will mean the issue will probably only be dealt with at the start of the corruption trial on July 31.

It is likely that Zuma's co-accused, French arms company Thint, will put up a protracted battle in Mauritius to prevent the South African authorities from getting the documents.

The judge was told this could take at least four months, but legal sources said it would delay the trial for up to a year.

At issue is Thint representative Alain Thétard's diary for the year 2000, which has an entry on Saturday March 11 indicating a meeting between Thétard, Zuma and "SS" (Schabir Shaik).

The diary was seized from Thint's offices in 2001 by Mauritian authorities. Copies were used against Zuma's former financial advisor, Shaik, in his corruption trial.

The original is being held by the Independent Commission Against Corruption in Mauritius under a court injunction that prevents its release without a court order from that country.

The state alleges that this document proves a meeting took place between the "three co-conspirators", when a bribe to Zuma from Thint was discussed and agreed upon.

The state also needs another document that shows which Thint, Mauritius, paid R250 000 to Shaik.

It was this money that Judge Hilary Squires, the presiding judge in the Shaik trial, found to be the first installment of a R1 million bribe to Zuma.

Judge Combrinck said while he understood the state's desire to make the application now, he believed that only the trial judge had jurisdiction to grant such an order.

He said while the Act was "badly drafted", one had to look at the "ordinary, grammatical meaning of it".

This was in response to argument by Advocate Guido Penzhorn, acting for the state, that he should not interpret the word "court" literally to mean himself as the presiding officer, but rather the broader meaning of the word.

With acknowledgement to  Tania Broughton and The Mercury.