Publication: The Star
Issued:
Date: 2007-08-01
Reporter: Karyn Maughan
|
Zuma Takes Gloves Off in His Court Appeal
|
| Publication |
The Star
|
| Date |
2007-08-01
|
|
Reporter
|
Karyn Maughan
|
|
Web Link
|
www.thestar.co.za
|
State's corruption and tax probe a
sham, says attorney
Jacob Zuma is gearing up for a series of court
battles that will determine whether he is charged for corruption - and if the
state's multimillion-rand investigation into his financial affairs ever sees the
light of day.
And, in response to the state's challenge to the outlawing
of the search-and-seizure operations that they used to compile a massive
forensic audit into his financial affairs up until August 2005, Zuma has slammed
the state's fraud and income tax investigation against him as a sham.
Arguing that the state needed these "sham" claims to justify its raids
on the homes and offices of Zuma and his former and current attorneys, Julekha
Mahomed and Michael Hulley, Zuma's legal team described the state's explanation
of its tax investigation as "irrational".
Zuma, Mahomed and Hulley have
already won their High Court battles to have the Scorpions' 2005 raids declared
unlawful. Now they must fight the state's efforts in the Supreme Court of Appeal
in Bloemfontein to have these rulings overturned.
In papers filed at the
Supreme Court of Appeal, Zuma's advocate, Kemp J Kemp, stated: "The alleged
crime investigated is this: Zuma took bribes from (his former financial adviser
and convicted fraudster Schabir) Shaik during various tax years.
If Zuma
did not declare these as income, he defrauded the fiscus/contravened the Income
Tax Act.
"Hence the National Prosecuting Authority wants to investigate
every single financial deal of his in order to establish this," he said, adding
that "the artificial nature hereof is obvious".
"What were the prospects
that Zuma would, if the monies received were bribes, have declared them as
income? Why and how would a corrupt politician (the assumption) do so? A sense of honour to the fiscus *1? And how would he still
be in parliament? The prospects must be zero," Kemp said.
Kemp also
criticised the state for failing to obtain and investigate Zuma's tax returns,
if it truly believed that he was guilty of tax offences.
"Zuma's tax
returns were readily available … Why did the NDPP (National Directorate of
Public Prosecutions) not simply ask Zuma if he had included the Shaik payments
as income on his tax returns?" Kemp asked.
The Scorpions' tax probe was
a "pure stratagem to bolster the warrant application and extend the scope of the
warrants", he said. "It was an abuse of the powers of the NPA to achieve a
purpose for which these warrants were not intended.
"A warrant was
sought and obtained that allowed every facet of Zuma's life, and in particular
his financial affairs, to be placed under a magnifying glass in order to find
anything that would harm him."
According to Kemp, the state had also
used its disputed raids to gain access to Zuma's possible defence against the
corruption charges he faced in 2005, following Shaik's conviction for fraud and
corruption.
Shaik was found guilty, among other charges, of arranging a
R500 000 bribe for Zuma from French arms company Thint in exchange for Zuma's
protection from a potentially damaging arms deal probe.
The hearing of
the state's warrant appeals - as well as Thint's appeal against a ruling that
found that searches on its offices were legal - will take
place in the Supreme Court in late August *2.
With acknowledgements to Karyn Maughan and The Star.
*1 Sarcasm - the last logical
refuge of the witless.
*2 Let the games
continue.
In the meantime, the Constitutional Court is really taking
its time in delivering its judgment in the Schabir Shaik request for leave to
appeal.