The law says using 'political connectivity' for personal gain adds up to illegal racketeering, an activity for which JZ has been charged

Meet Jacob Zuma the racketeer - the Al Capone of South Africa, who was consciously involved in an "enterprise" the aim of which was to win contracts or score business deals by using his "political connectivity".

Needless to say, the use of Zuma's "political connectivity" as a fulcrum for getting business was illegal and for Zuma, an active and influential politician, to be handsomely paid for using his influence was also illegal.

This is the picture that has emerged from the indictment served on Friday by the directorate of special operations, better known as the Scorpions, on Zuma, the new ANC president, charging him with racketeering, corruption, fraud, money laundering and tax evasion.

Zuma was not at his Johannesburg home to receive the 66-page indictment. But the document reached Michael Hulley, Zuma's Durban-based attorney, by e-mail, and he took it to Zuma, who was at Nkandla in rural KwaZulu-Natal, yesterday morning.

At first glance the indictment seems pretty similar to the charge sheet that was used to prosecute Schabir Shaik, the Durban businessman, whose conviction in 2005 within weeks led to President Thabo Mbeki sacking Zuma from the deputy presidency and the national prosecuting authority (NPA) charging Zuma with corruption and fraud - a case that was struck off the roll in the Pietermaritzburg high court in September 2006.

The only major difference in the new Zuma indictment appears at first to be that the amount of money allegedly paid by Shaik to Zuma has jumped from a total of roughly R1,2 million to a total of R4 072 499.85. This is because the Scorpions had, in Shaik's case, looked at payments to Zuma from October 1995 to roughly 2003. The time period has now been extended to July 2005.

And it is stated in the indictment, even more baldly than in the papers at Shaik's trial, that the payments to Zuma during that decade made no legitimate business sense because Nkobi Investments, Shaik's group of companies, was far from financially healthy.

The indictment reads that, "whatever their description", all of Shaik's payments to Zuma were intended as bribes, because no attempt was ever made by Shaik to recoup any of the money.

Although the two indictments seem similar, there are two vital differences between them.

The first is that, while encompassing charges of corruption and fraud, the new indictment is focused on charges of racketeering.

Racketeering, read in conjunction with the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, is defined as being guilty of carrying out illegal activities "while associated with any enterprise ... [and participating] in conduct of the enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activities".

In other words, Zuma is no longer being accused of merely being in a corrupt relationship. The business relationship between him, Shaik and Thint, the French arms dealer, and the companies through which they operated, is portrayed as an ongoing, tripartite enterprise that existed in many (though not all) cases for the sake for conducting illegitimate business - that is, winning business contracts by illegal means.

The "illegal means" are the use of Zuma's influence and "connectivity" during the periods that he was the MEC for economic affairs and tourism for KwaZulu-Natal from May 1994 to June 1999, deputy president of the ANC from December 1997 until now, and deputy president of South Africa and leader of government business from June 1999 to June 2005.

The joint ventures in which Nkobi and Thint were involved were not limited to the arms deal but also included sectors such as transport, tourism, justice, finance, prisons, hospitals, water, Durban airport, the government ID card contract, the third cellular network contract, and the N1, N3, and N4 road projects.

The second difference in the new indictment is that Thint is portrayed as a major player in the conspiracy to commit crime whereas previously it was characterised as a kind of adjunct to what went on between Shaik and Zuma.

The three accused in the indictment are Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma, Thint Holdings and Thint (Pty) Ltd, two local corporate entities of the French arms dealer Thales, represented by Pierre Moynot, the chief executive of both.

Zuma and the two Thint companies face 18 counts of racketeering, corruption, money laundering, fraud and, alternatively, tax evasion. The main count, of racketeering, is aimed at all three, as is the count of money laundering, while many of the counts of fraud and corruption are aimed at Zuma alone.

The basic charge against Zuma is that, although as a provincial or government official he was not allowed "to undertake other paid work, expose himself to situations involving risk of conflict between official and private interests", he clearly benefited by being paid by Shaik, Nkobi and Thint for using his influence.

"Shaik and Thint," the indictment reads, "set out to bribe Zuma from October 1995 onwards for their own interests" and from October 1995 to July 2005 he received payments totaling R4 072 499.85.

The ways in which Zuma allegedly assisted Nkobi and Thint were similar to the ways set out in the case against Shaik: helping in negotiations with African Defence Systems and various other matters related to the strategic defence package acquisition, or arms deal.

When investigations began into aspects of the arms deal, following the September 1999 statement made in parliament by Patricia de Lille, Shaik and Thint resolved that they needed Zuma to protect them from these investigations, especially into the corvette deal in which Thint and Shaik were involved.

It was then that Shaik negotiated a R1 million bribe - broken into four R250 000 instalments over two years - for Zuma with Thint.

According to the indictment, Zuma needed the money to build his "residential village estate" at Nkandla.

The indictment also reads that Zuma was responsible for writing the letter that went to parliament's standing committee for public accounts saying that it was unnecessary for the Heath special investigating unit to be involved in investigating the arms deal.

This is odd because it became clear during the Shaik trial that, although Zuma had signed the letter, it was actually written by president Thabo Mbeki.

The trial, at which Zuma will be asked to answer the charges in the indictment, has been set down for August 14 in the Pietermaritzburg High Court.

Billy Downer SC, who has led the investigation and the successful prosecution of Shaik, is expected to lead the prosecution once again and may well be assisted by human rights doyen, Wim Trengove SC. Zuma is expected to be represented once again by Kemp J Kemp SC.

With acknowledgements to Sunday Independent.