Publication: The Star
Issued:
Date: 2007-05-25
Reporter: Karyn Maughan
| Publication |
The Star
|
| Date |
2007-05-25
|
|
Reporter
|
Karyn Maughan |
|
Web Link
|
www.thestar.co.za
|
'Ex-deputy
could have helped Schabir's case'
Jacob Zuma could have shed some
light on the lies told by Schabir Shaik - if he had shared the dock with his
ex-financial adviser.
This is according to Shaik's counsel, Martin
Brassey SC, who yesterday suggested Zuma's evidence could have been "saintly by comparison" to the often dishonest testimony given by his client.
"Can you
imagine a man of such stature testifying from the witness box in an open and
frank manner, which would have dispelled the unfortunate impression my client
might have made, brought on because he is bombastic," he said.
"Zuma
would have shed compelling light on the matter."
Brassey made his final
submissions to the 10 Constitutional Court justices, who, after two years, will
decide whether Shaik will spend the next decade in jail.
Brassey
maintains that the state unfairly used Shaik as a "dry run" in preparation for
its aborted Zuma prosecution. "If anyone believes that my client was the ultimate fish that was sought to be landed, they obviously haven't been reading the newspapers," he
said.
But Brassey came under fire over his claim that Zuma's potentially
exonerating evidence could have come to light only if he had also been charged
with corruption. Claiming that it would not have been possible for Shaik to call
Zuma as a defence witness, Brassey said this request had to be seen in the
context of their "comrade" relationship.
"For an accused to call a
compatriot in the struggle, who is now the deputy president (of South Africa),
in circumstances where he will have to carefully weigh his answers … could this
have been sensibly done? The answer is it could not."
But Chief Justice
Pius Langa questioned Brassey's reasoning, which, he said, effectively amounted
to Shaik saying "I can't call you (to testify) as a comrade and I prefer that you be charged".
Earlier, Brassey
told the court that Shaik's dishonesty under oath might have been a result of
"the problem so often experienced by accused who consider themselves to be
mentally adept".
Instead of telling the Durban High Court the truth about
his relationship with Zuma, Brassey said Shaik had "conceived a set of facts"
that he had believed would sound more plausible.
Meanwhile, in a surprising twist in the hearing, Shaik's legal team effectively abandoned their claim that the so-called "encrypted
fax", which helped to prove that Shaik had orchestrated a R500 000 bribe
for Zuma from French arms company Thint, was inadmissible.
Instead, they focused on the state's
failure to charge Zuma and Thint with Shaik, claiming that this decision had
violated Shaik's right to a fair trial.
The state, represented by senior
counsel Wim Trengove, delivered a scathing response
to the application. Explaining that the state believed it had a stronger case
against Shaik, Trengove said the state did not know "whether Zuma knew why (the
238 payments made to him by Shaik) were being made and if he was aware that his
influence was being bought".
Chief Justice Langa reserved judgment on
whether the Constitutional Court would grant Shaik leave to appeal against his
conviction, sentence and the forfeiture of certain of his assets. With acknowledgements to Karyn Maughan
and The Star.