Concourt rules that State can keep his R33 million

Schabir Shaik's bribery of ANC president Jacob Zuma has been proved and established, according to South Africa's highest court.

While ruling that Shaik will not be able to retrieve from the State the more than R33 million in benefits he received because of his corrupt relationship with Zuma, the Constitutional Court (Concourt) found yesterday that it was "neither necessary nor appropriate" to examine whether Zuma believed the payments he got from Shaik were bribes.

In a unanimous verdict, the Concourt found that the State had established "as a matter of fact" that Zuma's former financial adviser had received multimillion-rand benefits "as a result of Mr Zuma's support for Mr Shaik and his companies".

Shaik - who is currently serving a 15-year sentence for fraud and corruption - had appealed to the Concourt to question the validity of two courts' findings that he had obtained certain benefits after Zuma intervened on his behalf with French arms company Thomson-CSF/Thint.

Speaking on behalf of the Concourt's 11 judges, Justice Kate O'Regan found that the State had proved that Zuma met a Thomson representative after the company, acting on information that then president Nelson Mandela and then deputy president Thabo Mbeki did not like Shaik, started backing out of its relationship with the businessman.

After meeting Zuma on July 2 1998, Thomson recommitted itself to a relationship with Shaik and his companies - resulting in Shaik obtaining a 20% interest in African Defence Systems (ADS) as part of the Thomson consortium, which was awarded a multimillion-rand contract to provide the combat suites for the SA navy's new corvette vessels.

It was these shares and their dividends, valued at more than R33m, that the State then seized, arguing they were the proceeds of crime - a claim backed by the Concourt yesterday.

Addressing arguments by Shaik's counsel, Martin Brassey SC, that the State had failed to prove that Zuma had intervened on Shaik's behalf solely because of the bribes and not out of friendship, Justice O'Regan said it was "neither necessary nor appropriate ... to traverse Mr Zuma's subjective state of mind".

"The only question in this court is whether, on a balance of probabilities, the State has established that the benefits flowed to (Shaik and his companies) as a result of their criminal conduct," she said.

Justice O'Regan accepted the Supreme Court of Appeal's finding that Shaik's payments to Zuma were made "in order to influence Mr Zuma to promote Mr Shaik's business interests".

The Concourt's ruling was "a real victory" for the Assets Forfeiture Unit, the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions said yesterday.

Billy Downer SC, who was the leading prosecutor in the case against Shaik, said the money would be deposited into the Crime Assets Recovery Account: "(It) will be used ... to fight crime, such as offering victims support and shelter for rape victims *1." - Additional reporting by Sapa

With acknowledgements to Karyn Maughan, Sapa and Cape Argus.