Publication: The Star Issued: Date: 2007-04-02 Reporter: Karyn Maughan Reporter:

Zuma Loses Diary Battle : Judge Agrees to Help Scorpions Get Vital Papers

 

Publication 

The Star
Date

2007-04-02

Reporter

 Karyn Maughan

Web Link

www.thestar.co.za

 

The state's investigation of Jacob Zuma for corruption got a boost in the Durban High Court this morning.

Deputy Judge President Phillip Levensohn agreed to ask Mauritian authorities to hand over 13 sets of documents, which could be used as evidence in a corruption and money laundering case against the former deputy president and French arms company Thint.

The entire proceedings in Court D lasted less than a minute, with Judge Levensohn stating he had prepared a written judgment but would only read out the order.

"In effect, I make an order in terms of which the request which is sought by the state is granted," he said.

The 13 sets of documents the NPA is seeking to have released from Mauritius include the 2000 diary of former Thint chief executive Alain Thetard.

The state has previously claimed that "the entry (in Thetard's diary) for March 11 2000 is a particularly important piece of evidence for the state and the present prosecution".

This entry allegedly shows that Thetard met "J Zuma + SS" in Durban on that day.

Judge Levensohn's decision will come as a double blow to Zuma, following last week's ruling by Pretoria High Court Judge Ben du Plessis.

Du Plessis granted a request by the state for him to ask for information from British lawyers and banks relating to payments made to Zuma's account.

It has since emerged that the Scorpions believe that tracking these payments will enable them to find the conduit through which a R500 000 bribe was paid to Zuma by Thint.

Zuma's lawyers have been fighting the state's request for Mauritian authorities to release the Mauritian documents, which relate to alleged meetings between Zuma, convicted businessman Schabir Shaik and Thint.

In 2005, Shaik, Zuma's former financial adviser, was convicted of trying to solicit a R500 000 bribe from Thint for Zuma, in exchange for the then deputy president's protection from a potentially damaging arms deal enquiry.

While Zuma has challenged the state to reveal whether it plans to recharge him, the National Prosecuting Authority has remained tight-lipped.

State advocate Billy Downer told the court that the state had yet to make a decision about Zuma and Thint's possible prosecution, but added that it was obvious that the state wanted the documents in question "for possible use in a possible future trial".

He also revealed that the state's success in obtaining the documents could influence the final decision on whether to again prosecute Zuma or Thint.

The legal teams for Thint and Zuma argued that the search and seizure raids on Thint's Mauritian offices - in which many of the documents were secured - were unlawful.

They have not, however, challenged the relevance of these documents.

Meanwhile, Downer has accused Thint and Zuma's legal team of using "arguments, supposition and rumour" to oppose the state's bid.

Downer told the court that, despite the defence's claim that the NPA had "unclean hands", the state had followed the correct diplomatic channels in securing the documents.

He has also argued that Zuma and Thint's lawyers adopted a "shotgun approach" by trying to discredit the state "in absolutely everything" it had done in the course of its investigations.

In March last year the state attempted to obtain a similar letter of request for the Mauritius documents, which Judge Pete Combrinck ruled would have to be granted by the trial judge during the case against Zuma.

In September, however, Pietermaritzburg High Court Judge Herbert Msimang struck the case against Zuma and Thint from the roll.

The NPA then, on December 12, returned to the Durban High Court and asked for a letter of request to the Mauritian attorney general in terms of the International Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act.

Levensohn ruled in chambers that Zuma and Thint had until February 9 to file papers opposing the application, while the state had until March 2 to respond.

With acknowledgements to Karyn Maughan and The Star.