Publication: Cape Times Issued: Date: 2007-02-27 Reporter: Karyn Maughan

'Zuma Got Special Treatment'

 

Publication 

Cape Times
Date

2007-02-27

Reporter

Karyn Maughan

Web Link

 www.capetimes.co.za

 

Scorpions investigator tells of 'Mr X'

Johannesburg: 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", says a top Scorpions investigator.

And senior Directorate of Special Operations member Johan du Plooy 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 cross-examination that Zuma would face 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 got special treatment when he and Shaik were being investigated for corruption - with prosecution heavyweights even dubbing the former deputy president "Mr X" to avoid him 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 which 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 if 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 that 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 crime was committed when the economic effect of apartheid still persisted, and the offence amounted to an act of civil disobedience.

Shaik's legal team contends his acts "defied the law under unjust economic conditions that inhibited self advancement".

Du Plooy said the submissions were "hopeless".

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

But Du Plooy disagreed, describing Shaik's argument as "absurd" and claiming that it was the State who suffered as a result of then prosecuting head Bulelani Ngcuka's decision *1.

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," Du Plooy said, adding that Shaik "must now live with the consequences of that decision."

Pointing out that Zuma had initially denied meeting with Thint representative Alain Thetard during the period that he allegedly agreed to the R500 000 bribe, Du Plooy said such an omission was "extraordinary" and would provide fertile ground for cross-examination *2.

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

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

Du Plooy criticised the Zuma defence team's suggestions - which were made to Judge Msimang - that the former deputy president's prosecution was politically motivated. These claims, he said, contained "a mass of serious, often scurrilous and largely unfounded allegations."

The investigator said the NPA had been the target of "unprecedented attacks ... in the media in the recent years" which, he claimed were a result of the fact that the prosecution had simply done their duty in relation to their prosecution of Shaik and Zuma, "notwithstanding the fact that their decisions may have angered powerful or popular people *3".

With acknowledgements to Karyn Maughan and Cape Times.


*1       The People suffered as a result of then prosecuting head Bulelani Ngcuka's decision.


*2      Fertile indeed - fertile as a pile of bulldust.


*3      The conduct and decisions of the then National Director of Public Prosecutions and the then Minister of Justice - often working in tandem - have angered the meek, the mild, the powerful and the popular.

For one, the meek wish to know the identity by name of the "senior counsel experienced in these matters" who allegedly advised the NDPP that the case against Zuma was not sufficiently winnable.

It is clear that this opinion was bulldust - and just as fertile.

Out with his name.

Let's see his opinion in writing with his signature appended.