Ex-deputy president described as less than honest in dealings with investigators

Judge Herbert Msimang's decision to strike the case against Jacob Zuma and French arms company Thint from the court roll was "open to criticism".

This was the view yesterday of a top Scorpions investigator, Johan du Plooy.

The senior Directorate of Special Operations member has described Zuma as "vague" and "less than honest" in his dealings with investigators - suggesting that convicted fraudster Schabir Shaik did not call Zuma to testify on his behalf because of the gruelling cross-examination Zuma would have faced from the state.

Du Plooy last week submitted a strongly worded affidavit in response to Shaik's claims, made to the Constitutional Court, that the way in which he had been investigated and prosecuted for corruption - including his solicitation of a R500 000 bribe for Zuma from Thint - had violated his rights to a fair trial.

According to Du Plooy, Zuma received special treatment when he and Shaik were being investigated for corruption - with prosecuting department heavyweights even dubbing the former deputy president "Mr X" to avoid his facing public embarrassment.

Explaining how the National Prosecuting Authority had sought to protect Zuma's "credibility" during its 2001 investigations, Du Plooy said the Scorpions had "adopted a number of procedures that it did not normally use" - including omitting any reference to Zuma from certain investigation documentation, search and arrest warrants, and requests for mutual legal assistance "from the other countries involved".

"Instead the phrase 'a high-ranking official called Mr X' was used," Du Plooy said.

The state had also elected to exclude Zuma's homes and offices from search-and-seizure operations, he said.

Du Plooy has refused to be drawn on when and whether the state would recharge Zuma and Thint.

"Any future decision as to whether Zuma and Thint will be charged together, or indeed at all, and if so what charges they will face, will be taken on the basis of the available evidence and surrounding circumstances," he said.

Du Plooy, however, confirmed the state had applied for the Mauritian attorney-general to return crucial original documents needed to prosecute Zuma and Thint after Judge Msimang's decision.

Meanwhile Shaik's legal team has submitted what Du Plooy described as an "avalanche of factual material" - most of which came out of Zuma's corruption case - to try to justify their appeal.

In a startling admission, Shaik has claimed that his 15-year corruption sentence was too severe, particularly considering the fact that the offence was committed when the economic effect of apartheid still persisted and amounted to an act of civil disobedience.

The corruption, Shaik's legal claimed, "defied the law under unjust economic conditions that inhibited self-advancement".

Du Plooy, however, said the submissions were "hopeless".

Shaik's lawyers also insist that the state's failure to prosecute him with Zuma and Thint resulted in his being given an unfair trial.

But Du Plooy disagreed, describing Shaik's argument as "absurd" and claiming it was the state that suffered as a result of then prosecuting head Bulelani Ngcuka's decision.

He also questioned why Shaik had failed to call Zuma as one of his defence witnesses.

"There was no legal reason why (Shaik and his companies) could not have called Zuma as a witness … It is clear that they deliberately decided not to do so," said Du Plooy, adding that Shaik "must now live with the consequences of that decision".

Pointing out that Zuma had initially denied meeting Thint representative Alain Thethard during the period he allegedly agreed to the R500 000 bribe, Du Plooy said such an omission was "extraordinary" and would provide fertile ground for cross-examination.

"In light of fundamental contradictions … it is unsurprising that Shaik and his companies elected not to call either Zuma or Thethard in their defence," he said.

Du Plooy said Shaik's attempt to appeal to the Constitutional Court was "simply an attempt … to avoid the consequences of convictions and sentences properly imposed and confirmed on appeal".

Du Plooy criticised the Zuma defence team's suggestions that the former deputy president's prosecution was politically motivated, saying they contained "a mass of serious, often scurrilous, and largely unfounded allegations".

With acknowledgement to Karyn Maughan and The Star.