Publication: Sunday Tribune Issued: Date: 2007-06-03 Reporter: Sapa

Judge Hugo to Decide on Mauritian Evidence

 

Publication 

Sunday Tribune
Date 2007-06-03

Reporter

Sapa

Web Link

www.sundaytribune.co.za

 

The National Prosecuting Authority will know on Tuesday whether it has succeeded in obtaining an execution order to allow it to retrieve documents from Mauritius about meetings believed to relate to arms deal corruption.

Judge Jan Hugo, who heard argument this week from the state, ANC Deputy President Jacob Zuma and French arms manufacturing giant Thint, will reveal his decision on whether he has granted the execution order allowing the NPA to proceed with a letter of authorisation which was granted earlier in the year by Judge Philip Levensohn.

However, Thint and Zuma have appealed against Levensohn's letter of authorisation and the Supreme Court of Appeal will hear the matter in Bloemfontein on September 21.

Should Hugo rule in the NPA's favour, then it can begin taking the necessary legal steps in Mauritius to retrieve the documents which are believed to include the diary of former Thint executive Alain Thetard.

The diary allegedly had an entry that indicated convicted Durban businessman Schabir Shaik, Thetard and Zuma met to iron out details of an alleged R500 000 a year bribe for Zuma.

Last Tuesday, Hugo asked Zuma's advocate Kemp J Kemp, "If a person professes his innocence, then why go to all these lengths to prevent the evidence being obtained?"

Kemp replied, "We think it is important. This is not like a fight between two champ fighters.

"This is more like Stalingrad. It's burning house to burning house."

Kemp then told Hugo, "If I can keep it (the evidence) out, it is my duty to keep it out. If it advances the accused's battle plan, why should we give that up?" *1

Both legal teams - that of Zuma and that of Thint - argued that the granting of the execution order would not be "just and equitable".

Kemp said, "If the order is granted, all they will have scored is four months."

Both he and Thint's advocate, Nirmal Singh, pointed out that the granting of the execution order would result in legal action in Mauritius *2, which "would be all for nothing" if Thint and Zuma won their appeal in Bloemfontein.

With acknowledgements to Sapa and Sunday Tribune.


*1       Conversely, if I can keep the evidence in, it is my duty to keep it in.

The difference is, who has a cogent argument, or the more cogent one.

The respondents' argument in this case is that there is a political conspiracy.

But because the respondents' argument has no valid premises it is not cogent.

It is false. It is twaddle. It is poppycock.


*2      Maybe this is part of the applicant's battle plan.

Tire out the opposition financially and get a free *3 long weekend holiday on an Indian Ocean island paradise to boot.


*3      If the respondents lose their case, they must pay costs.

Maybe an expert witness is needed in Mauritius.

Or just someone to carry the bags of affidavits and replying nonsense.

When do the marlin run in this fair region?