Publication: The Mercury Issued: Date: 2007-03-09 Reporter: Tania Broughton

Judges to Decide on Validity of Shaik's Case

 

Publication 

The Mercury
Date

2007-03-09

Reporter

 Tania Broughton

Web Link

www.themercury.co.za

 

While Schabir Shaik languishes in Westville Prison, Constitutional Court judges are poring over voluminous documents, deciding whether they will even hear his appeal against convictions for corruption and fraud, 15-year prison sentence and confiscation of R34 million assets.

In his appeal, the first hurdle Shaik has to overcome is to show he has raised valid constitutional issues.

"Sometimes the court simply dismisses the case after finding there are no constitutional grounds to be decided. Sometimes it listens to argument on this issue before making a ruling," said a legal source.

A spokesman in the court's registrar's office said: "We are still waiting for directions from the chief justice."

Shaik launched the application in December after his appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals failed.

The Constitutional Court is the last legal avenue open to him, although there have been unconfirmed reports that his family is attempting to lobby the Department of Correctional Services and ministers for his early release on the grounds of ill-health.

In his papers lodged with the court, Shaik argues that the decision to prosecute him alone, and not with axed deputy president Jacob Zuma, had contravened his right to equality and a fair trial *1.

He claims he was prejudiced because the trial court did not hear evidence from Zuma and representatives of French arms manufacturer Thint.

In its reply, the state says Shaik is trying to avoid the consequences of convictions and sentences properly imposed and confirmed on appeal.

It also questioned why Shaik had failed to call Zuma as a defence witness in the Durban High Court trial.

Another issue raised by Shaik is the confiscation of R34.4 million of his assets, which were deemed "ill-gotten gains" from his corrupt relationship with Zuma.

Among the assets were his stake in African Defence Systems, worth R21 million, and R12.7 million he had earned in dividends from the shares.

The court-appointed curator is retaining the Thint shares, cash of R1.4 million, Cellsaf shares worth R7.25 million and the equity in an Innes Road, Morningside, mansion.

One of the issues raised by Shaik is that the forfeiture order was a form of "double-counting" because the dividends were absorbed within the value of the shares.

In reply, Asset Forfeiture Unit head Willie Hofmeyr said: "A confiscation order in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act is based on the gross proceeds of the crimes and not on the net profit."

With acknowledgements to Tania Broughton and The Mercury.


*1       No, under normal circumstances it is the State's right to charge who and how they like.

However, the unacceptable conduct of the ex National Director of Public Prosecutions and ex Minister of Justice, which led to their decision to prosecute Shaik alone and not with ex deputy president Jacob Zuma and The Two Thints, contravened The People's right to have all four behind bars and nationally blacklisted by now.

A joint trial would also have saved the country not only tens of millions of Rands of investigation and prosecution costs, but multiple trials have tied up the only National Prosecuting Authority investigating team available to investigate and prosecute a host of other Arms Deal cases.

Part of the Big Game Plan?

Because one thing is for sure, Schabir Shaik and Tony Yengeni are but sprats in the frying game.

Even Zuma and The Two Thints are but minnows.

But the lard splattered thus far has been hot and viscous.

Imagine if the National Director of Public Prosecutions got his act together and turned up the heat on those plump, medium-sized and larger fish, hey that includes you Mr Mbeki.

Like elephants, The Fishers of Corrupt Men will cast and cast and cast and never forget.