ANC President Jacob Zuma should not be allowed to quash "important" evidence
implicating him in corruption, racketeering and multimillion-rand tax fraud, the
state says.
The National Prosecuting Authority argues that one reason why he should not be
allowed to do so are the "links" it says the disputed evidence shows between
Zuma's former financial adviser and convicted fraudster, Schabir Shaik, and
"political office-bearers".
In heads of argument filed on Thursday the state urged the Constitutional Court
to deny Zuma the chance to challenge the Scorpions's raids of his homes and
offices and his attorney's office in 2005.
The raids were carried out two months after Justice Hilary Squires convicted
Shaik on two counts of corruption and one of fraud. The corruption charges
related to Shaik's attempt to solicit a R500 000-a-year bribe from arms company
Thint for Zuma.
Now the state claims the documents seized during the August raids have expanded
the charges in its first aborted case against Zuma and could be used to show
that:
Zuma "failed to disclose" to the SA Revenue Service or parliament that he
received a total of 583 payments from Shaik.
Zuma failed to declare taxable income of about R2,7-million and evaded tax of
about R1,16-million (The state claims investigations into these alleged tax
offences are "continuing").
Shaik had paid Zuma over R4-million between 1995 and June 2005 - three times the
amount that Shaik was convicted of.
Zuma intervened on Shaik's behalf, or Shaik used Zuma's name, 32 times - 28 more
alleged interventions than those proved during Shaik's trial.
Zuma and Thint "participated in the conduct of (Shaik's Nkobi business) through
a pattern of racketeering activity".
According to the state, the disputed documents also allowed Scorpions
investigators to understand "Mr Zuma's financial position, including his
reliance on third-party financial assistance to maintain his lifestyle".
Prosecutors claim the documents further shed "new light"
on Shaik's acquisition of an interest in African Defence Systems. It was
the state's case that Thint/Thomson wanted to pull out of the business
partnership through which Shaik's Nkobi company secured the shares but had been
deterred from doing so by Zuma.
It was on this basis that the state was able to seize the shares and their
dividends as the "proceeds of crime".
This forfeiture is now the subject of a Constitutional Court appeal.
The state argues that the documents were important because they showed "why some
of the old documents (used in Shaik's case) were more relevant than previously
sought; confirm certain meetings; provide evidence of certain meetings; provide
evidence of the outcome of certain meetings..."
According to prosecutors, Zuma and Thint's "only" purpose with these proceedings
(to have the warrants that netted the new documents declared invalid), is to
recover the evidence gathered under the disputed warrants in
an attempt to deprive the state of the evidence in
its prosecution of Zuma and Thint.
Zuma and Thint would have ample opportunity to argue against the admissibility
of the disputed evidence when they went on trial, the state claimed.
Arguing for his constitutional rights to a fair trial, Zuma however claims the
disputed warrants were "overbroad" and "vague", thus allowing "on the face of
it, a general ransacking of the premises targeted" during the raids.
* This article was originally published on page 1 of The Cape Times on
February 29, 2008