Publication: Independent Online
Issued:
Date: 2007-05-24
Reporter: Karyn Maughan
| Publication |
Independent Online
|
| Date |
2007-05-24
|
|
Reporter
|
Karyn Maughan |
|
Web Link
|
www.iol.co.za |
Thursday
will determine whether Schabir Shaik spends at least the next decade of his life
in jail - or faces a new corruption trial with ANC
deputy president Jacob Zuma.
The state has five hours in the
constitutional court in which to respond to Shaik's claims that its court case
against him should be declared a mistrial because he was not prosecuted with
Zuma and French arms company Thint.
Shaik's counsel, Martin Brassey SC,
on Wednesday contended that his client was the state's "dummy run" and the
"stalking horse" it used before deciding to prosecute Zuma for
corruption.
Shaik's legal team are seeking the right to challenge his
conviction and effective 15-year jail term for fraud and corruption connected to
his relationship with Zuma.
Brassey on Wednesday suggested that, should
Zuma have been tried with Shaik, the true nature of the men's relationship could
have been exposed by Zuma's testimony and "the resulting judgment would have
taken a different shape".
Admitting that Shaik had fared "very badly"
when he testified in his own defence, Brassey said Shaik had suffered "from the
problem so often experienced by accused who consider
themselves to be mentally adept".
Instead of telling the Durban
high court the truth, Brassey said Shaik had "conceived a
set of facts" that he had believed would sound more
plausible.
"If the truth had been placed properly in context by Mr
Zuma's evidence (if he had been charged) - the court case
could have been very different *1," he said.
Having previously
branded Shaik's submissions to the constitutional court as flawed and illogical, State counsel Wim Trengove SC is
expected to be less than charitable in his response
to Shaik's last-ditch bid for freedom.
In papers before the court,
Trengove questioned Shaik's claim that Zuma could have given evidence to
exonerate him if he had been charged. He claimed Shaik had carefully avoided
saying whether Zuma's evidence would be true or not.
Trengove said that
if Zuma gave evidence clearing Shaik that was true, and Zuma was himself
innocent of any corruption, then Shaik was contending that an innocent man
should be charged for the sake of his exculpatory evidence. If Zuma was guilty,
and his evidence false, then his testimony would have little value to the
court.
This argument was flawed in terms of its own
logic, he argued.
Responding to the state's questions over why
Shaik failed to call Zuma as a defence witness, Shaik's lawyers claimed Zuma
declined to testify on the basis of legal advice.
Trengove will today
also have to address Shaik's claims of "gross prosecutorial
misconduct *2" against the man who successfully prosecuted him for fraud
and corruption: Billy Downer SC.
Shaik's lawyers claim that Downer acted
as both investigator and prosecutor when he acted against Shaik, a role that
they claim was "undesirable" and "irregular".
"He entered the court room
like a BP man, all blown up with information that a
prosecutor should not have access to," Brassey on Wednesday argued, as a visibly bemused Downer sat in a chair next to him.
•
This article was originally published on page 3 of Pretoria News on May 24, 2007 With acknowledgements to Karyn Maughan and Independent Online.
*1 Indeed it would, it would
have had J.G. Zuma and Thomson-CSF convcted at the same
time.
*2 Codswollip.
*3 Bemused?
Vat hom, Wim.