Publication	Cape Argus
Date	2007-05-20
Reporter	Jeremy Gordin
Web Link	www.capeargus.co.za

On the eve of Schabir Shaik's Constitutional Court appeal, a furore has broken out about the mechanical engineering doctorate awarded to his brother, Shamin "Chippy" Shaik, in 2003 by the University of KwaZulu-Natal.

According to his brother, Yunis, Chippy has been accused of plagiarising parts of his thesis with the connivance of Professor Victor Verijenko, his supervisor.

Yunis said yesterday that Chippy had been accused of reproducing word-for-word a paper, "Refined Theory of Laminated Anisotropic Shells for the Solution of Thermal Stress Problems" in his dissertation.

"But the point," said Yunis, "is that he was one of the four authors who wrote the original paper. How can you plagiarise yourself?"

Yunis said Chippy had used the paper with the knowledge of his co-authors, one of whom was Verijenko; that the paper was noted in the thesis bibliography; and that it was internationally accepted practice for students to incorporate in their theses work of which they were co-authors with their advisers.

"In other words, this is just another smear - whenever Schabir is due to go to court, another pops up in the media," said Yunis.

In an e-mail from Australia, where he is on sabbatical, Verijenko said work done by Chippy had been of a very high standard and that he could not understand where questions about the dissertation had come from.

Verijenko said in the e-mail that he knew Dr Richard Young of Cape Town had for some reason tried to "review" Chippy's thesis and he suspected this was the source of the trouble.

He said he knew the relationship between Chippy and Young was "acrimonious" and that Young was in any case not qualified to judge Chippy's thesis.

Young, of the C2I2 company, has threatened legal action in the past, claiming his company was done out of arms deal contracts by Schabir Shaik's Nkobi Holdings.

---

This article is abject nonsense.

It is purely the spin put forward by the affected parties, without the slightest effort to get commentary from the other side, including the University or the parties who conducted the investigation.

The content is simply regurgitated by a journalist known for his sympathetic views, such regurgitation clearly being with the permission of the authors.

That this journalist wrote such drivel is entirely understandable, but that his editor allowed it to be published is to the eternal shame of what is meant to be an esteemed newspaper.

This editor needs to explain.

But ironically the statement (from whence part of the drivel is derived) issued for and on behalf of the candidate by his appointed attorney is actually self-incriminating because it confirms just one critical flaw in the thesis as alleged, i.e. that it is not the own unaided work of the candidate as attested in the signed Declaration on Page ii of the thesis.

But there's more........................., lots more............

---