The investigation into former Deputy President Jacob Zuma and French arms manufacturer Thint’s alleged involvement in arms deal-related fraud, money laundering and racketeering is to be extended to Britain.

The National Director of Public Prosecutions this week obtained a Pretoria High Court order, authorising the Directorate of Special Operations to ask UK authorities for help to obtain in formation pertaining to the probe.

Deputy National Director of Pubic Prosecutions, Leonard McCarthy, said in court papers he was firmly of the view there was no legal bar to reinstitute the prosecution against Thint and Zuma, even though the previous criminal charges against them were in September last year struck off the roll. Zuma and Thint maintained they were entitled to a permanent stay of prosecution.

McCarthy said the investigation against Zuma and Thint on charges of corruption and money laundering was continuing and there was a possibility charges of racketeering could be added to the charge sheet, should the prosecution be reinstated.

Businessman Schabir Shaik is serving a 15-year jail term after the Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed his conviction on fraud and two counts of corruption relating to the payment of “bribes” to Zuma.

McCarthy said there was sufficient evidence to prove Zuma had received more than R4 million from Shaik and his companies between 1995 and 2002 and beyond and that he had provided “official” assistance to them on occasions in their private business interests.

There was also evidence the Thales group, including the Thint companies had, through Shaik, offered to pay Zuma an annual bribe to gain his protection against official investigations into the arms deal, and for his future support of Thomson projects in SA.

Thomson and Shaik sought to disguise the payment of a portion of the annual bribe to Zuma by means of a false service provider agreement, he said.

McCarthy said payment of the full amount due to Zuma in accordance with the bribe agreement of R500 000 per annum from about mid-2000 had not been identified, but the possibility of payments in addition to the money Thomson/ Thint laundered through their Mauritius subsidiary to Shaik for Zuma remained.

It was necessary to determine all of Zuma’s legitimate sources of income to strengthen the State’s contention he was not in a position to repay loans of the magnitude involved to Shaik.

An accounting analysis of Zuma’s financial affairs would be incomplete without further information concerning payments totalling more than R1 million from a company called Cay Nominees from the UK to Zuma, as contradictions indicated the true source of the funds was being disguised.

With acknowledgement to Ilse de Lange and The Citizen.