Publication: Cape Argus Issued: Date: 2006-12-19 Reporter: Sapa Reporter:

Shaik Tells Constitutional Court His Trial Was Unfair as He Was Not Charged with Zuma or Thint

 

Publication 

Cape Argus

Date

2006-12-19

Reporter

 Sapa

Web Link

www.capeargus.co.za

 

Schabir Shaik's trial was "unfair" because he was never charged with Jacob Zuma or the French arms manufacturing giant Thint on charges of corruption and fraud, an appeal application filed with the Constitutional Court said yesterday.

Shaik was found guilty of two counts of corruption and one of fraud by Judge Hilary Squires in the Durban High Court in July last year and was sentenced to 15 years in jail.

The verdict was upheld by a full bench of the Supreme Court of Appeal on November 6 and Shaik has begun serving his sentence.

Shaik's lawyer Reeves Parsee said to the media in Durban yesterday: "We contend that he should never have been charged alone. *1"

Parsee said Shaik should have been charged along with Zuma as well as Thint, the local subsidiary of French arms manufacturing giant Thales International *1.

He said the fact that Zuma and Thint were not charged, but placed on the State's witness list in Shaik's trial, effectively silenced the two to his client's disadvantage.

"Because they were still suspects, they would not have wanted to speak for fear of implicating themselves," he said.

The decision to try Shaik alone constituted "trial unfairness" and was "unlawful and illegal".

In the appeal application, filed by Parsee, he said that both pre-trial investigations and in-trial legal procedures had compromised Shaik's constitutional right to a fair trial.

"At this point, I record that the NPA's (National Prosecuting Authority's) conduct compromised the fairness of the investigating process, and the First Applicant's (Shaik's) fair trial rights in the Durban proceedings," said Parsee in the application.

In addition to unlawful investigations, Parsee said Shaik was prejudiced because he was not tried jointly with the other applicants such as Thint and Jacob Zuma.

"Trying Shaik separately effectively silenced Zuma and Thint, who would have implicated themselves had they been called as witnesses," he said.

In the application, he said that as a result of this, all evidence was not presented to the court when it ruled on the question of Shaik's guilt.

Because the deadline for the appeal had been on Friday last week, an application for condonation of late filing was also included in the application.

Parsee cited time constraints as a main reason for the missed deadline.

He added that as a result of his trial and consequent imprisonment, Shaik had been under "considerable strain" which had diverted his attention from the appeal application.

Meanwhile, Department of Correctional Services spokesman Luphumzo Kebeni said Shaik was still being treated at a Durban hospital.

"As far as I am aware, his condition has not changed,"he said. "I cannot disclose any detail about his condition. That can only be disclosed by his doctor or his family."

Shaik was admitted to Durban's St Augustine's Hospital at the end of last month.

There were reports that he had suffered a stroke.

His brother Mo Shaik said that he was "still under medication and his high blood pressure is fluctuating all the time".

With acknowledgements to Sapa and Cape Argus.


*1       I contend that Shaik should never have been charged alone. Shaik should have been charged along with Zuma as well as Thint, the local subsidiary of French arms manufacturing giant Thales International.

But my reasons are not that this was unfair to Shaik, but because it is unfair to The People of South Africa.

It is patent nonsense that the NPA's case against Zuma was not strong enough to win because firstly the evidence was extremely strong and secondly the test foe prosecutability is whether there is a prima facie case (which there was).

The NPA's case against Thomson-CSF (Thales) was equally strong, indeed stronger because the evidence directly implicated Thetard, de Yomaron and Perrier whereas it only indirectly implicated Zuma. The NPA did not need Thetard's affidavit confirming his authorship of the encrypted fax because they had the original handwritten version and handwriting expert evidence confirming it was Thetard work. They also had his secretary's verbal evidence, as well as computer forensic evidence, that it was his handwriting, his words and his piece of paper that she typed, got him to approve and then fax to Paris. Telephone forensic evidence supports that the fax was sent. The NPA's acceptance of the wording of the first affidavit would make both Inspector Plod and Noddy blush with embarrassment. The NPA needed a subsequent affidavit from Thetard denying the clear meaning of the contents of the fax like a hole in the head. The NPA's NDPP's withdrawal of the charges against Thint on this basis is clearly wrong and his motives for doing so are suspect. Not only was it wrong in simple terms, but it has caused massive downstream negative implications for just about every aspect of this nauseous matter.

For one, the du Plooy Twins, as well as Advocates Downer and Steynberg, should long have disposed of the Shaik/Zuma/Two Thints matter and be concentrating on why British Aerospace paid South African persons unknown 35 million pounds sterling to secure the Hawk and Gripen deal. While the exact final recipients of the wonga may not be known, the British authorities wish to know the roles played in distributing this largesse by South Africans John Bredenkamp and Fana Hlongwane, the latter the late Minister of Defence's, Joe Modise's, "special" advisor. The former is president or whatever of a company called Aircraft Consultancy Services (ACS) and probably the occult interlocuter between British Aerospace and the South African Department of Defence, via the agency services of Richard Charter's Osprey Aviation. We South Africans on the other hand would like to know from the British the roles played in this affair by, inter alia, Sir Richard Evans, chairman of British Aerospace and Alan McDonald, head of BAe's International Marking and Sales Organisation (IMSO).

But in the meantime, any progress in this matter is stalled in the Serious Economic Crime Office, a division of the South African Police Service, headed by the famous crime fighter, commissioner for no apparent reason, Jackie Selebi, friend it seems for every good reason, of Glen Agliotti, friend in turn of one Brett Kebble.

Now Brett Kebble is dead and Richard Charter is dead.

Who's next to die?

Should some among us be scared, or be very scared?

In the meantime, have a Happy Christmas.