The State alleges that the accused are guilty of the following crimes :

COUNT 1: CORRUPTION in contravention of section 1(1)(b) read with section 3 of the Corruption Act, No 94 of 1992. (In terms of section 156 of Act 51 of 1977 only in respect of accused 1)

In the alternative (as separate counts)

SUBCOUNT 1: CORRUPTION in contravention of section 1(1)(b) read with section 3 of the Corruption Act, No 94 of 1992. (In respect of the period 25 October 1995 to 26 April 2004)

SUBCOUNT 2: CORRUPTION in contravention of section 3(a) read with sections 1, 2, 21, 24, 25 and 26 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, No 12 of 2004. (In respect of the period 27 April 2004 to 18 August 2005)

RECEIVING AN UNAUTHORISED GRATIFICATION BY A PERSON WHO IS PARTY TO AN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP in contravention of section 10(a) read with sections 1, 2, 21, 25 and 26 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, No 12 of 2004. (In respect of the period 27 April 2004 to 18 August 2005)

COUNT 2: CORRUPTION in contravention of section 1(1)(a) read with section 3 of the Corruption Act, No 94 of 1992. (In terms of section 156 of Act 51 of 1977 only in respect of Accused 2 and 3)

In the alternative (as separate counts)

SUBCOUNT 1: CORRUPTION in contravention of section 1(1)(a) read with section 3 of the Corruption Act, No 94 of 1992. (In respect of the period 25 October 1995 to 26 April 2004)

SUBCOUNT 2: CORRUPTION in contravention of section 3(b) read with sections 1, 2, 21, 24, 25 and 26 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, No 12 of 2004. (In respect of the period 27 April 2004 to 18 August 2005)

Alternatively to subcount 2:

RECEIVING AN UNAUTHORISED GRATIFICATION BY A PERSON WHO IS PARTY TO AN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP in contravention of section 10(b) read with sections 1, 2, 21, 25 and 26 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, No 12 of 2004. (In respect of the period 27 April 2004 to 18 August 2005)

COUNT 3: CORRUPTION in contravention of section 1(1)(b) read with section 3 of the Corruption Act, No 94 of 1992. (In terms of section 156 of Act 51 of 1977 only in respect of accused 1)

In the first alternative

MONEY LAUNDERING in contravention of section 4(a) and /or (b), read with sections 1, 4(i), 4(ii) and 8 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act, No 121 of 1998

In the second alternative

ACQUISITION, POSSESSION OR USE OF PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES in contravention of section 6(a), (b) or (c), read with sections 1 and 8 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act, No 121 of 1998

COUNT 4: CORRUPTION in contravention of section 1(1)(a) read with section 3 of the Corruption Act, No 94 of 1992. (In terms of section 156 of Act 51 of 1977 only in respect of accused 2 and 3)

In the first alternative

MONEY LAUNDERING in contravention of section 4(a) and /or (b), read with sections 1, 4(i), 4(ii) and 8 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act, No 121 of 1998

In the second alternative

ACQUISITION, POSSESSION OR USE OF PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES in contravention of section 6(a), (b) or (c), read with sections 1 and 8 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act, No 121 of 1998

WHEREAS :

A. THOMSON-CSF/THALES/THINT GROUP

The Group

1. The French Thomson-CSF (hereinafter referred to as Thomson-CSF) group of companies has global industrial interests, including interests in the international arms industry.

2. Thomson-CSF was later renamed the Thales group of companies.

3. Thomson-CSF International (France), which later became Thales International, is a division within the Thomson-CSF group.

4. Thomson-CSF International was headed at all relevant times by Jean-Paul Perrier (hereinafter referred to as Perrier).

5. Thales International in its turn had a subsidiary Thales International Africa Ltd (Mauritius).

6. Thales International Africa was headed at all relevant times by Yann Leo Renaud de Jomaron (hereinafter referred to as de Jomaron).

Thomson Holdings (Accused 2)

7. On 21 May 1996, Thomson-CSF Holding (Southern Africa) (Pty) Ltd was incorporated in South Africa to promote the development of South African industry by entering into joint ventures.

8. Thomson Holdings had an authorized share capital of 100 ordinary shares at a nominal value of R1000.00 per share. On 27 May 1996, 85 shares were issued to Thomson-CSF (France), 10 shares to Nkobi Investments (see below) and 5 shares to Gestilac SA (Switzerland). On 9 June 1998, the authorised share capital was increased with 17 000 1% redeemable non-cumulative preference shares at R1 000.00 per share and 14 450 shares were issued to Thomson-CSF (France). On 26 July 1999, Gestilac SA transferred its 5 ordinary shares in Thomson Holdings to Thomson-CSF (France) for $1 000.00 (R6 145.00). On 27 July 1999, Thomson-CSF (France) transferred its 90 ordinary shares to Thomson-CSF International (France) for R90 701.98. The effect of these transactions was that Thomson-CSF International (France) and Nkobi Investments became the only shareholders in Thomson Holdings. Also on 27 July 1999 Thomson-CSF (France) transferred 14 450 preference shares to Thomson-CSF International (France) for R14 554 679.00. On 16 September 1999, the authorised share capital was increased with 22 412 ordinary shares at R1 000.00 per share. On 29 September 1999, 22 412 ordinary shares were issued to Thomson-CSF International (France). On 30 September 1999, Nkobi Investments transferred its 10 ordinary shares to Thomson-CSF International (France) for R500 000.00. The effect of this transaction resulted in Thomson Holdings being wholly owned by Thomson-CSF International (France).

On 4 April 2001, Thales International (formerly Thomson-CSF International), transferred 22 512 ordinary shares and 14 450 preference shares to Thales International Africa Ltd (Mauritius), the latter company thereby replacing the former as sole shareholder of Thomson Holdings.

9. Thomson Holdings changed its name to THINT Holding (Southern Africa) (Pty) Ltd on 23 October 2003.

10. Schabir Shaik (hereinafter referred to as Shaik) was a director from the date of incorporation in 1996 to 30 September 1999, when he resigned from the board.

11. Alain Thétard (hereinafter referred to as Thétard) was appointed as a director on 1 April 1998. Thétard resigned from the board on 30 January 2002.

12. Pierre Jean-Marie Robert Moynot (hereinafter referred to as Moynot) was a director from the date of incorporation in 1996 to 1 April 1998, when he resigned from the board. He was re-appointed as a director on 1 October 2002 and he remains as such.

Thomson (Pty) (Accused 3)

13. On 16 July 1996 Thomson-CSF (Pty) Ltd was incorporated in South Africa, also to promote the development of South African industry by entering into joint ventures.

14. Thomson Holdings has been the majority shareholder and Nkobi Investments the minority shareholder since 1 August 1996 when 70 shares were issued to Thomson Holdings and 30 to Nkobi Investments. On 16 September 1999 the share capital was increased and on 29 September 1999 shares were issued to Thomson Holdings and Nkobi Investments to cause Thomson Holdings to become the owner of 75% and Nkobi Investments 25% of Thomson (Pty).

15. Thomson (Pty) changed its name to THINT (Pty) Ltd on 19 August 2003.

16. Shaik was a director since the date of incorporation in 1996 to 13 June 2005 when he resigned from the board.

17. Thétard was appointed as a director on 1 April 1998 and resigned on 30 January 2002.

18. Moynot was a director from the date of incorporation in 1996 to 1 April 1998, when he resigned from the board. He was re-appointed as a director on 16 January 2004 and he remains as such.

B. THE NKOBI GROUP

Nkobi Holdings

19. Nkobi Holdings (Pty) Ltd was registered on 27 February 1995 as a holding company. It was initially wholly owned by Shaik. The shareholding went through various permutations subsequently. Shaik has an effective majority shareholding in Nkobi Holdings, through his interests in the following shareholders of Nkobi Holdings, namely Star Corp SA (Pty) Ltd, Clanwest Investments (Pty) Ltd and Floryn Investments (Pty) Ltd.

20. Nkobi Holdings' only investment is Nkobi Investments.

21. Floryn Investments is ostensibly wholly owned by Shaik. He initially intended to hold the shares as nominee or cedent for the African National Congress, which would have made the latter, from the point of view of Shaik and/or the Nkobi group, a 10% shareholder in Nkobi Holdings.

Nkobi Investments

22. Nkobi Investments (Pty) Ltd was registered on 24 February 1995 as an investment company. It was initially wholly owned by Shaik. The shareholding went through various permutations until, on 20 August 1998, Nkobi Holdings became the sole shareholder.

23. As described above, Nkobi Investments had an initial minority shareholding in Thomson Holdings. In addition it had, and continues to have, a minority shareholding (25%) in Thomson (Pty).

Other relevant corporate entities within the Nkobi group

24. The following companies are all entities within the Nkobi group, being 100% owned by Nkobi Investments. (There are a number of other entities within the Nkobi group.)

a. Kobifin (Pty) Ltd b. Kobitech (Pty) Ltd c. Proconsult (Pty) Ltd d. Pro Con Africa (Pty) Ltd e. Kobitech Transport Systems (Pty) Ltd

Other relevant corporate entities

25. Shaik was the sole shareholder and a director of Clegton Investments (Pty) Ltd.

26. Shaik was the majority shareholder and sole director of Chartley Investments (Pty) Ltd.

Control of the Nkobi group and other relevant entities

27. Shaik was at all relevant times a director of, and exercised effective control over, all the corporate entities within the Nkobi group and the other relevant corporate entities mentioned above (Floryn Investments (Pty) Ltd, Clegton Investments (Pty) Ltd and Chartley Investments (Pty) Ltd).

C. AFRICAN DEFENCE SYSTEMS (PTY) LTD

28. African Defence Systems (Pty) Ltd (hereinafter also referred to as ADS) was first registered in 1967 under another name. After a history of various owners, Thomson-CSF (France) acquired 7 000 001 shares on 14 April 1998, to become a joint shareholder with Allied Technologies Ltd. On 19 February 1999 Allied Technologies Ltd transferred its shareholding in ADS to Thomson-CSF (France). On 9 June 1999 Thomson-CSF (France) transferred its shareholding in ADS to Thomson-CSF International (France). On 15 September 1999 Thomson-CSF International (France) transferred its shareholding in ADS to Thomson (Pty) (80%) and FBS Holdings (Pty) Ltd (20%).

D. ZUMA (ACCUSED 1)

29. Accused 1 was a member of the KwaZulu-Natal legislature and the Minister of Economic Affairs and Tourism for the Province of KwaZulu-Natal from May 1994.

30. In terms of section 136 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, accused 1, as a member of the executive council of a province, may not have-

(a) undertaken any other paid work;

(b) acted in any way that was inconsistent with his office, or exposed himself to any situation involving the risk of a conflict between his official responsibilities and private interests; or

(c) used his position or any information entrusted to him, to enrich himself or improperly benefit any other person.

31. In December 1997 accused 1 was elected Deputy President of the African National Congress.

32. In terms of Rule 16.2 of the African National Congress Constitution as amended and adopted at the 50th National Conference in December 1997, the duties and functions of the Deputy President are described as follows:

"The Deputy President shall assist the President, deputise for him or her when necessary and carry out whatever functions are entrusted to him or her by the National Conference, the President or the NEC (National Executive Committee). He or she shall be an ex-officio member of the NWC (National Working Committee)."

33. In terms of Rule 16.1 of the African National Congress Constitution as amended and adopted at the 50th National Conference in December 1997, the President has, inter alia, the following duties and functions:

"…He or she shall:…

b. Make pronouncements for and on behalf of the NEC outlining and explaining the policy or attitude of the ANC on any question…

d. Under the overall supervision of the NEC, orient and direct the activities of the ANC."

34. In terms of Rule 26.3.2 of the African National Congress Constitution as amended and adopted at the 50th National Conference in December 1997, the following shall be regarded as serious offences:

c. Behaving corruptly in seeking or accepting any bribe for performing or for not performing any task;

d. Engaging in……abuse of office to obtain…..any other undue advantage from members or others;

e. Abuse of elected or employed office in the organization or in the State to obtain any direct or indirect undue advantage or enrichment.

35. Accused 1 was appointed as Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa and a member of the National Assembly of Parliament on 17 June 1999. The Code of Conduct in Regard to Financial Interests, as adopted by the Joint Meeting of the Rules Committees of the National Assembly and the Senate on 21 May 1996, applied to him in this capacity. In terms of paragraph 1.1 of the Code, accused 1 was duty bound to maintain the highest standards of propriety to ensure that his integrity and that of the political institutions in which he served were beyond question. In terms of paragraph 1.2, accused 1 was duty bound not to have placed himself in a position which conflicts with his responsibilities as a public representative in Parliament, nor may he have taken any improper benefit, profit or advantage from the office of Member.

36. In terms of section 96(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, accused 1 as a member of the cabinet may not have-

(a) undertaken any other paid work;

(b) acted in any way that was inconsistent with his office, or exposed himself to any situation involving the risk of a conflict between his official responsibilities and private interests; or

(c) used his position or any information entrusted to him, to enrich himself or improperly benefit any other person.

37. In June 1999 accused 1 was appointed Leader of Government Business in the National Assembly of Parliament in terms of section 91(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act No 108 of 1996.

38. Accused 1, by virtue of the various offices he held, had the powers and/or duties attendant to such offices.

E. ZUMA'S BENEFIT FROM SHAIK, THE NKOBI GROUP AND OTHER RELEVANT ENTITIES

General Corruption

39. Shaik and/or the relevant corporate entities within the Nkobi group and/or the other relevant corporate entities have benefited accused 1 in the period 25 October 1995 to 30 September 2002 in the amount of R1 269 224.91, as set out in the schedule (hereinafter referred to as the schedule benefits). This is by way of payments from Shaik and/or the relevant corporate entities within the Nkobi group and/or the other relevant corporate entities to accused 1 and various parties for the benefit of accused 1.

40. The said payments for the benefit of accused 1 have continued in the period after 30 September 2002 to 18 August 2005, in an aggregate amount as yet undetermined by the State (hereinafter referred to as the undetermined benefits).

41. On 28 February 1999 an amount of R1 282 027.63 was irregularly written off in the Nkobi accounting records (Kobifin (Pty Ltd)) under the description of development costs of Prodiba. This included an amount that was paid to accused 1. The balance represented amounts that Shaik and Floryn Investments (Pty) Ltd owed to the Nkobi group. This resulted in the misrepresentation of the 1999 Annual Financial Statements of Kobifin (Pty) Ltd, in that accounts receivable or director's and/or related third party loans were understated. Alternatively, retained income was overstated.

42. Also on 28 February 1999, a non-distributable reserve was created against a loan account of Kobi-IT (Pty) Ltd. The development costs amounting to R1 282 027.63 were finally written off against the non-distributable reserve. The annual financial statements reflect the net amount of the non-distributable reserve i.e. R2 217 972.00 as a "surplus" on disposal of work share in Prodiba (Pty) Ltd.

43. The schedule payments to accused 1 make no legitimate business sense, in that neither Shaik, the Nkobi group, nor the other relevant entities could afford the payments, being at all times in a cash-starved position relying on and at times exceeding bank overdrafts and thus effectively borrowing money from banks at the prevailing interest rates to make the said payments interest free. On the other hand, the group's survival depended upon obtaining profitable new business, inter alia, with the assistance of accused 1.

44. It is alleged that the schedule payments and the undetermined benefits were intended as bribes, whatever their description.

45. The abovementioned schedule benefits were paid to accused 1 in circumstances where he would not have been able to obtain such funding commercially. The following features of the payments constitute benefits to accused 1:

a. The facility of providing the funds to accused 1 is itself a benefit.

b. Inasmuch as the funds may have been provided interest-free, this is a benefit.

c. Inasmuch as interest may have purported to have been charged, interest payments were deferred. This is a benefit.

d. Inasmuch as capital payments may have purported to have been due, these were deferred. This is a benefit.

e. The funds were paid without security. This is not a usual commercial practice with banks and it constitutes a benefit.

f. An appraisal of a debtor's ability to repay a loan is a matter of some importance to banks who lend money. Inasmuch as accused 1's ability to repay the money that Shaik and/or Nkobi advanced to him is seriously questionable, the "loans" are not commercial and they benefit accused 1. The notional interest payments alone are unaffordable.

g. Despite Nkobi's precarious position with the banks, Shaik and Nkobi made no effort to recover any of the payments from accused 1. This failure to demand repayment is itself a benefit to accused 1. Shaik did not intend to enforce the terms of the "loan" and neither has he done so. This is a benefit.

46. The abovementioned benefits are hereinafter referred to as the facility benefits.

47. Shaik acted as accused 1's financial adviser and/or special economic adviser without charging any fee or demanding any remuneration for this service. Shaik provided the following types of services in this capacity free of charge:

a. Managing accused 1's financial affairs;

b. Corresponding with and meeting accused 1's creditors;

c. Negotiating with accused 1's creditors and their legal representatives;

d. Corresponding with, meeting and dealing with accused 1's bankers, and introducing accused 1 to new bankers and services;

e. Providing legal advice and services to accused 1 through Shaik's attorneys;

f. Utilizing the administrative, secretarial and personnel resources of the Nkobi group for managing the affairs of accused 1 and his family;

g. Attending to the accommodation requirements of accused 1;

h. Attending to the financial and other affairs of accused 1's family members;

i. Assisting accused 1 to complete his tax returns;

j. Assisting accused 1 to complete the prescribed declarations of interests to Parliament and to the Secretary to the Cabinet.

48. The abovementioned services provided free of charge constitute benefits to accused 1 (hereinafter referred to as the service benefits).

General corruption giving rise to the specific corruption

49. During 1998, accused 1 intervened and assisted Shaik, the Nkobi group and the Thomson-CSF group to resolve a dispute that had arisen regarding Nkobi's participation with accused 3 in the acquisition of ADS. The details are described more fully below.

50. From the point of view of Nkobi, this was an instance of obtaining the assistance of accused 1 to ensure the group's survival by obtaining profitable new business.

51. From the Thomson-CSF perspective, this was an instance of obtaining advance political support from accused 1 for its choice of South African partners to gain an advantage over its bidding competitors for business relating to the arms deal.

52. Accused 1's assistance was informal and it did not form part of the official bidding process.

53. The dispute was resolved in principle with accused 1's assistance during 1998. The legalities pursuant to the agreement in principle regarding the restructuring that ensured Nkobi's participation in ADS with accused 3 were completed in September 1999.

54. On 9 September 1999, Patricia de Lille gave notice in Parliament that she wished to table a motion regarding alleged irregularities in the Arms Deal. The Presidency immediately issued a statement denying accused 1's involvement. De Lille's motion was tabled in Parliament on 21 September 1999. The matter received extensive publicity.

55. Also at about this time and on 28 September 1999, the Minister of Defence approved the Arms Deal for the Auditor General's special review.

Specific corruption

56. In the period 1999 to 2000, Thomson-CSF (France) and/or Thomson-CSF International (France) and/or Thales International Africa Ltd (Mauritius) and/or accused 2 and/or accused 3, together also with Shaik and his Nkobi group, conspired to pay accused 1 the amount of R500 000 per annum (hereinafter referred to as the annual benefits) as a bribe in exchange for accused 1's protection of the Thomson-CSF group in respect of the investigation into the corvettes ("Project Sitron") part of the Arms Deal and for his support of the Thomson-CSF group for future projects. These annual payments were to continue until the first payment of dividends by ADS.

57. Shaik, also acting on accused 1's behalf, had met with Thétard on 30 September 1999 to convey accused 1's request for a bribe to Thétard. Thereafter, and also in furtherance of the common purpose to achieve the purposes of the conspiracy to pay and receive the bribe and to secure accused 1's protection of and support for the Thomson-CSF group as described, a series of correspondences and meetings occurred, involving different combinations of Shaik, Thétard (acting as director of accused 2 and 3 and as the representative of the Thomson-CSF group in South Africa), accused 1, Perrier and de Jomaron.

58. It was agreed between the parties that the bribes would not be paid directly to accused 1, but that some method of payment would be employed that was calculated to disguise the true nature of the payments so as to avoid detection. Consequently, during the period late 2000 to early 2001, Kobifin (Pty) Ltd entered into a so-called "service provider agreement" with Thomson-CSF International Africa Ltd in Mauritius as a device to conceal or disguise the true nature and source of the payment of the bribe. In terms of the agreement, remuneration was to be paid in instalments of R250 000. The first two instalments were initially due before the end of December 2000 and on 28 February 2001 respectively. Shaik stipulated that the total remuneration was to be R1 million.

59. Accused 1 needed funds to pay for the development of his traditional residential village estate at Nkandla in rural northern KwaZulu-Natal. Plans for the development were dated March 2000. The development commenced in approximately July 2000. The final tender amount agreed to was R1 340 000 (after the development was commenced with). The development was finalized during March 2001. Various arrangements were made during the construction and subsequently to provide finance on accused 1's behalf. At no stage during construction and thereafter has accused 1 been able to settle the outstanding amount or obtain finance without the assistance of third parties, including arrangements for payment through Shaik in accordance with the agreement to disguise payments to accused 1 described above.

60. On 16 February 2001, R249 725.00 was transferred from Thales International Africa - Mauritius to the ABSA current account of Kobitech (Pty) Ltd as a first payment in pursuance of the abovementioned scheme.

61. Within eight days, on 24 February 2001, Kobitech (Pty) Ltd paid Development Africa, a trust which was accused 1's creditor, R250 000 as part of the scheme, in reduction of accused 1's liability to Development Africa.

62. At the same time, Kobitech (Pty) Ltd issued three post-dated cheques, with numbers sequential to the first paid cheque of R250 000, each also in the amount of R250 000 and each in favour of Development Africa.

63. The payment to Development Africa and the issuing of the post-dated cheques was for the credit of accused 1.

64. On 19 April 2001 Kobitech (Pty) Ltd requested ABSA Bank to stop payment on the three cheques each for R250 000 in favour of Development Africa.

65. On 4 September 2001 Shaik received a deposit of R175 000 from Kobitech (Pty) Ltd. On 5 September 2001 a cheque to the value of R125 000 was drawn against Shaik's account in favour of Development Africa. On 17 September 2001 a further cheque of R125 000 was drawn against Shaik's account in favour of Development Africa.

66. The schedule and/or undetermined and/or service and/or facility and/or annual benefits received and/or to be received by accused 1 as aforementioned from or on behalf of Shaik and/or the other relevant corporate entities, as set out above, constituted benefits which were not legally due to accused 1.

67. The benefits advanced to accused 1, for all the reasons mentioned above, were corruptly made in furtherance of an ongoing scheme and common purpose to influence accused 1 to use his office or position to advance the private business interests of Shaik and/or the Thomson-CSF group, including accused 2 and 3 and/or to reward accused 1 for so doing.

F. THE PRIVATE BUSINESS INTERESTS OF SHAIK, THE NKOBI GROUP AND THE THOMSON-CSF GROUP

General

68. Shaik made it clear that Nkobi's role in joint ventures with other partners was to provide political connections (as opposed to financial backing or technical expertise) and everybody understood that the political connection was so strong from Shaik's side that there was no need for Nkobi to provide the money or the expertise. Shaik accords specific prominence to his relationship with accused 1 in promotional material relating to the Nkobi group.

Joint ventures between the Thomson and Nkobi groups

69. Shareholders agreements were entered into between the Thomson and Nkobi groups on 22 May and 17 July 1996. In terms of these agreements, Thomson business in South Africa conducted through accused 3 would be in partnership with Nkobi.

70. Consequently, Thomson and Nkobi were joint venture partners (together with Denel) in obtaining the award of the contract for drivers' licences during 1996 - 1997 (the Prodiba joint venture).

71. There were a number of joint ventures and possible future joint ventures between Nkobi and Thomson, including projects in transport, tourism, justice, finance, prisons, hospitals, water, the Durban airport, the ID card contract, the N2, N3 and N4 road projects, the third cellular telephone network, the arms deal set out below and other military deals, and smart card technology.

The Arms Deal

72. In the design for the South African Defence Force, which was recommended in the Defence Review, military equipment types were identified as being required by the Force.

73. In order to procure the said military equipment, requests for information were submitted on 23 September 1997 to various other countries, and after receipt of such information by the closing date of 31 October 1997, requests for offers were issued to short listed potential suppliers.

74. The process to procure the various types of equipment was generally known as the Strategic Defence Package Acquisition Programme, or the arms deal.

75. Thomson-CSF had originally, and as early as 1995, envisaged supplying the combat suites through the vehicle of ADS, in partnership with Nkobi.

76. At approximately the same time as the request for information was submitted by the South African government to foreign suppliers in September 1997, Thomson-CSF became concerned that its choice of Nkobi as its South African partner for the proposed acquisition of ADS (all with a view to successfully bidding for the combat suites as described), did not carry the approval of influential figures within the South African government. It was thus decided that Thomson-CSF (France) would acquire a share directly in ADS, to the exclusion of accused 3 and thus to the exclusion of Nkobi, until the issue of suitable local partners could be resolved. This decision to exclude Nkobi was despite the shareholders' agreement between Thomson and Nkobi. Consequently, Thomson-CSF (France) acquired 50% of ADS on 14 April 1998.

77. In response to the request for offers, inter alia for corvettes, the German Frigate Consortium submitted an offer dated 11 May 1998 to supply the corvettes. The bid included ADS as the proposed supplier of the combat suites. It was also proposed in the bid that ADS would join the joint venture as a consortium partner in the final contract.

78. As indicated above, Nkobi was at this stage excluded from ADS. Thomson-CSF, on the other hand, was urgently seeking the informal political support it considered necessary to improve its chances of a successful bid involving ADS.

79. Moynot, as the then director of accused 2 and 3, suggested as early as 28 November 1997 that a meeting between Perrier and accused 1 should be sought, inter alia to resolve the issue of informal approval.

80. Similarly, on 17 March 1998, Shaik indicated that accused 1 wished to meet Perrier to resolve the issue.

81. Apart from the German Frigate Consortium, the South African government also received offers from the other short-listed parties. After the closing date for the receipt of offers on 13 May 1998, the next step in the official process was to select a preferred bidder. The Strategic Offers Committee met on 1 and 2 July 1998 for this purpose and specifically to consolidate the scores of the various technical teams that were evaluating various aspects of each bid.

82. Accused 1 met Perrier in London on 2 July 1998 with Shaik, in accordance with both Thomson's and Shaik's wish. Thomson required his approval of its ADS partner. Shaik required his approval of Nkobi as such ADS partner in order to cause Thomson to reverse its decision to exclude Nkobi from the ADS acquisition.

83. Accused 1 indicated that he approved of Nkobi as a suitable partner and it was decided in principle to reverse the earlier Thomson decision to exclude it from ADS.

84. Chippy Shaik is Shaik's brother. He was at this time Chief of Acquisitions in the department of defence and as such he directed the arms acquisition process. Thétard sought a meeting with him on 3 July 1998, which was held on 8 July 1998. During this meeting Chippy Shaik indicated that he was aware of the meeting in London on 2 July 1998 between accused 1, Perrier and Shaik at which accused 1 had indicated his approval for Nkobi as a partner with Thomson in ADS.

85. The resolution of the dispute between Thomson and Nkobi was taken further, once again with the assistance of accused 1, at a meeting on 18 November 1998. The formalities of the earlier agreement were decided upon. In terms of the agreement reached on 18 November 1998, Thomson-CSF (France) would sell to Nkobi Investments, through accused 3, an effective shareholding in ADS. The result of this was that Nkobi Investments would become a joint venture partner with Thomson in the German Frigate Consortium bid and so joined the successful bidder in the corvette bid. The ADS portion of the corvette contract was worth R1,3 billion, with R450 million coming directly to ADS and the balance going to sub-contractors. In the result, the Nkobi and Thomson groups stood to benefit from profits arising from the corvette contract.

86. The German Frigate Consortium bid was approved as the preferred bidder by the South African cabinet on 18 November 1998.

87. The actual transactions involving the sale of shares were registered in 1999. The most relevant transaction is that of 15 September 1999, when Thomson-CSF International (France) transferred 25 500 000 shares in ADS to Thomson (Pty), giving Thomson (Pty) 80% of ADS and consequently Nkobi Investments an indirect 20% interest in ADS.

88. A negotiating phase between the South African government and the German Frigate Consortium as the preferred bidder followed after 18 November 1998. The final contract was signed on 3 December 1999 between the government and a new consortium named the European South Africa Patrol Corvette Consortium (ESAPCC). This new consortium included ADS as a principal as originally proposed in the German Frigate Consortium bid to supply the combat suites.

Protection against investigations pertaining to alleged irregularities in respect of the arms deal

89. During November 1998, the Defence Audit Centre of the Office of the Auditor-General identified the procurement of the Strategic Defence Package Acquisition Programme as a high-risk area from an audit point of view and decided on the need to perform a special review of the procurement process. On 28 September 1999 the Minister of Defence, MPG Lekota, approved the Auditor General's audit review into the procurement process.

90. Questions relating to alleged irregularities in the Strategic Defence Package Acquisition Programme arose from September 1999. These were raised in the press and Parliament. Allegations of corruption in respect of the award of the contract for the corvette programme were raised in the media from February 2000.

91. As the matter progressed, the South African government eventually faced requests to appoint the Heath Special Investigation Unit to investigate irregularities relating to the arms deal. The Heath Special Investigation Unit was a statutory agency mandated to investigate irregularities.

92. There was a perception on the part of Shaik, the Nkobi group and accused 2 and 3 that it would be in their interests to be protected against such investigations, inter alia, because they did not wish it to be discovered that accused 1 had intervened informally to assist in the resolution of the ADS dispute for the benefit of the Nkobi an Thomson groups, whilst receiving payments from Shaik and the Nkobi group. As mentioned above, the bribe of R500 000 per annum was in exchange for accused 1's protection.

93. In a letter dated 19 January 2001, written in his capacity as "Leader of Government Business" in Parliament, accused 1 addressed a long letter to Gavin Woods, then chairperson of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It included the contention that there was no need for the Heath Unit to be involved in any investigation of the arms deal.

Furthering other private business interests of the accused

94. Shaik and the Nkobi group sought to secure business partners and business opportunities by trading on Shaik's political connectivity. Shaik relied on accused 1's name and assistance in negotiations or communications with or in respect of (inter alia) the following :

a. David Wilson of the Renong Group of Malaysia concerning the Point Development b. Peter Watt of Altron c. Deva Ponnoosami and Professor John Lennon concerning the Eco-Tourism School d. Thomson-CSF France e. Kuwaiti businessman Fouad Alghanim f. The establishment of an Nkobi Bank g. Jeffrey Crane of Crane (Africa)(Pty) Ltd h. The chairman of United Bank for Africa PLC - Hakim Belo-Osagie i. Grant Scriven of Venson PLC

AND WHEREAS

In committing the aforesaid acts, the accused did so in furtherance of a common purpose in respect of the offences set out hereinafter.

AND WHEREAS

The provisions of section 332 (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (10) and (11) of Act 51 of 1977 are applicable to the accused.

AND WHEREAS

AD THE ALTERNATIVE CHARGES TO COUNTS 1 AND 2

Applicability

a. The Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, No 12 of 2004 (hereinafter also referred to as the New Act) was assented to and commenced on 27 April 2004.

b. Section 36 of the New Act makes provision for transitional arrangements.

Gratification

c. The undetermined and/or service and/or facility benefits received and/or to be received by or on behalf of accused 1 as aforementioned from Shaik and/or the other relevant corporate entities, as set out above, constituted gratification as defined in section 1 of the New Act, which was not legally due to accused 1.

d. Such gratification was unauthorized by accused 1's employer.

General offence of corruption

e. Accused 1 accepted and/or agreed and/or offered to accept such gratification in order to act and/or omit to act, either personally by influencing another person so to act, in the manner described in section 3 of the New Act, to wit, by further and/or having furthered the interests of Shaik and/or the entities associated with Shaik and/or the Thomson-CSF group and/or accused 2 and/or accused 3 as set out above.

f. Accused 2 and 3 were, together with Shaik and the Nkobi group of companies, party to a common purpose to give and/or agree and/or offer to give such gratification to accused 1 in order that accused 1 act and/or omit to act, either personally or by influencing another person so to act, in the manner described in section 3 of the New Act. Such common purpose arose during or about September 1997 and continued until at least 18 August 2005.

g. Neither the acceptance of or agreement or offer to accept the gratification, nor the giving or agreement or offer to give the gratification can be linked with reasonable certainty to any lawful authority or excuse on the part of the accused.

h. Accused 1 was, by virtue of his position of Deputy President, member of cabinet and leader of government business, party to an employment relationship at all material times from the date of commencement of the New Act until his dismissal on 14 June 2005.

i. Accused 1 accepted and/or agreed and/or offered to accept the gratification in relation to the exercise, carrying out or performance of his powers, duties and/or functions within the scope of his employment relationship as described above.

Accused 2 and 3 were, together with Shaik and the Nkobi group of companies, party to a common purpose to give and/or agree and/or offer to give such gratification to accused 1 in relation to the exercise, carrying out or performance of Accused 1's powers, duties and/or functions within the scope of his employment relationship as described above. Such common purpose arose during or about September 1997 and continued until at least 18 August 2005.

COUNT 1

NOW THEREFORE accused 1 is guilty of the crime of corruption in contravention of section 1(1)(b) read with section 3 of the Corruption Act, No 94 of 1992

IN THAT during the period 25 October 1995 to 18 August 2005 and at or near Durban in the district of Durban, accused 1, upon whom the powers had been conferred and/or who had the duties as set out in the preamble, unlawfully and corruptly received the abovementioned schedule and/or undetermined and/or service and/or facility benefits, which were not legally due, from Shaik and/or the other entities mentioned in the schedule with the intention that he should commit and/or omit any act in relation to his powers and/or duties to further the interests of Shaik and/or the entities associated with Shaik and/or the Thomson-CSF group and/or accused 2 and/or accused 3 as set out in the preamble and/or to be rewarded for having committed or omitted to do any act constituting any excess of such powers or any neglect of such duties, as set out in the preamble.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO COUNT 1 (AS SEPARATE COUNTS)

SUBCOUNT 1:
(In terms of section 156 of Act 51 of 1977, only against accused 1)

That the accused is guilty of the crime of CORRUPTION in contravention of section 1(1)(b) read with section 3 of the Corruption Act, No 94 of 1992.

IN THAT during the period 25 October 1995 to 26 April 2004 and at or near Durban in the district of Durban, accused 1, upon whom the powers had been conferred and/or who had the duties as set out in the preamble, unlawfully and corruptly received the abovementioned schedule and/or undetermined and/or service and/or facility benefits, which were not legally due, from Shaik and/or the other entities mentioned in the schedule with the intention that he should commit and/or omit any act in relation to his powers and/or duties to further the interests of Shaik and/or the entities associated with Shaik and/or the Thomson-CSF group and/or accused 2 and/or accused 3 as set out in the preamble and/or to be rewarded for having committed or omitted to do any act constituting any excess of such powers or any neglect of such duties, as set out in the preamble.

SUBCOUNT 2:
(In terms of section 156 of Act 51 of 1977, only against accused 1)

That the accused is guilty of the crime of CORRUPTION in contravention of section 3(a) read with sections 1, 2, 21, 24, 25 and 26 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, No 12 of 2004.

IN THAT during the period 27 April 2004 to 18 August 2005 and at or near Durban in the district of Durban, accused 1 directly or indirectly and wrongfully accepted and/or agreed and/or offered to accept the gratification as described in the preamble from another person, to wit: Shaik and/or the Nkobi group of companies, in order to act and/or omit to act, personally and/or by influencing another person to act, in a manner:

a. that amounts to the illegal, dishonest, unauthorized, or biased exercise, carrying out or performance of any powers, duties or functions arising out of a constitutional, statutory, contractual or other obligation; and/or

b. that amounts to:

• the abuse of a position of authority
• a breach of trust; and/or
• the violation of a legal duty or a set of rules; and/or

c. designed to achieve an unjust result; and/or

d. that amounts to an unauthorized or improper inducement to do or not to do anything.

TO WIT by furthering and/or having furthered the interests of Shaik and/or the entities associated with Shaik and/or the Thomson-CSF group and/or accused 2 and/or accused 3 as set out in the preamble.

ALTERNATIVELY TO SUBCOUNT 2
(in terms of section 156 of Act 51 of 1977, only against accused 1)

That the accused is guilty of the crime of RECEIVING AN UNAUTHORISED GRATIFICATION BY A PERSON WHO IS PARTY TO AN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP in contravention of section 10(a) read with sections 1, 2, 21, 25 and 26 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, No 12 of 2004. (In terms of section 156 of Act 51 of 1977, only against accused 1)

IN THAT during the period 27 April 2004 to 14 June 2005 and at or near Durban in the district of Durban, accused 1, being a party to an employment relationship as described in the preamble, directly or indirectly and wrongfully accepted and/or agreed and/or offered to accept the unauthorized gratification described in the preamble from another person, to wit: Shaik and/or the Nkobi group of companies, either for his own benefit or for the benefit of another person, in respect of his doing any act in relation to the exercise, carrying out or performance of his powers, duties or functions within the scope of his employment relationship, more particularly as described in the preamble.

COUNT 2

NOW THEREFORE accused 2 and 3 are guilty of the crime of corruption in contravention of section 1(1)(a) read with section 3 of the Corruption Act, No 94 of 1992

IN THAT during the period 25 October 1995 to 18 August 2005 and at or near Durban in the district of Durban, Shaik and/or the other entities mentioned in the schedule unlawfully and corruptly gave the abovementioned schedule and/or undetermined and/or service and/or facility benefits, which were not legally due, to accused 1, upon whom the powers had been conferred and/or who had the duties as set out in the preamble, with the intention to influence accused 1 to commit and/or omit any act in relation to his powers and/or duties to further the interests of Shaik and/or the entities associated with Shaik and/or the Thomson-CSF group and/or accused 2 and/or accused 3 as set out in the preamble and/or with the intention to reward Zuma because he so acted in excess of such powers or any neglect of such duties, as set out in the preamble

AND IN THAT accused 2 and 3, during the period September 1997 to 18 August 2005, and at or near Durban in the district of Durban and/or Lynnwood and/or Waterkloof in the district of Pretoria and/or Midrand in the district of Sandton and/or London in the United Kingdom and/or Paris, France and/or at other places both within and outside the Republic unknown to the State, wrongfully and unlawfully and corruptly associated themselves with and/or relied on the said benefits to accused 1 as a means to obtain the said assistance from accused 1 in respect of the ADS dispute as mentioned above, for the benefit of accused 2 and 3 and the Thomson-CSF group

AND/OR IN THAT accused 2 and 3, during the period and at the places aforementioned, wrongfully and unlawfully and corruptly assisted Shaik and/or the other entities mentioned in the schedule to maintain the said benefits to accused 1, by joining with Shaik in obtaining accused 1's approval for the partnership between Shaik and Nkobi Investments, on the one hand, and accused 3, on the other hand, in the ADS acquisition as described in the preamble, and thereby ensuring the survival of the Nkobi group and ensuring that Shaik and the Nkobi group would be sufficiently in funds derived from future ADS dividends to give the said benefits to accused 1

AND/OR IN THAT accused 2 and 3 wrongfully and unlawfully and corruptly and with the intention of preventing the said corrupt benefits from being discovered, agreed to make the annual payments to accused 1 as described in the preamble.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO COUNT 2 (AS SEPARATE COUNTS)

SUBCOUNT 1:
(In terms of section 156 of Act 51 of 1977, only against accused 2 and 3)

That accused 2 and 3 are guilty of the crime of corruption in contravention of section 1(1)(a) read with section 3 of the Corruption Act, No 94 of 1992

IN THAT during the period 25 October 1995 to 26 April 2004 and at or near Durban in the district of Durban, Shaik and/or the other entities mentioned in the schedule unlawfully and corruptly gave the abovementioned schedule and/or undetermined and/or service and/or facility benefits, which were not legally due, to accused 1, upon whom the powers had been conferred and/or who had the duties as set out in the preamble, with the intention to influence accused 1 to commit and/or omit any act in relation to his powers and/or duties to further the interests of Shaik and/or the entities associated with Shaik and/or the Thomson-CSF group and/or accused 2 and/or accused 3 as set out in the preamble and/or with the intention to reward Zuma because he so acted in excess of such powers or any neglect of such duties, as set out in the preamble

AND IN THAT accused 2 and 3, during the period September 1997 to 26 April 2004, and at or near Durban in the district of Durban and/or Lynnwood and/or Waterkloof in the district of Pretoria and/or Midrand in the district of Sandton and/or London in the United Kingdom and/or Paris, France and/or at other places both within and outside the Republic unknown to the State, wrongfully and unlawfully and corruptly associated themselves with and/or relied on the said benefits to accused 1 as a means to obtain the said assistance from accused 1 in respect of the ADS dispute as mentioned above, for the benefit of accused 2 and 3 and the Thomson-CSF group

AND/OR IN THAT accused 2 and 3, during the period and at the places aforementioned, wrongfully and unlawfully and corruptly assisted Shaik and/or the other entities mentioned in the schedule to maintain the said benefits to accused 1, by joining with Shaik in obtaining accused 1's approval for the partnership between Shaik and Nkobi Investments, on the one hand, and accused 3, on the other hand, in the ADS acquisition as described in the preamble, and thereby ensuring the survival of the Nkobi group and ensuring that Shaik and the Nkobi group would be sufficiently in funds derived from future ADS dividends to give the said benefits to accused 1

AND/OR IN THAT accused 2 and 3 wrongfully and unlawfully and corruptly and with the intention of preventing the said corrupt benefits from being discovered, agreed to make the annual payments to accused 1 as described in the preamble.

SUBCOUNT 2:
(In terms of section 156 of Act 51 of 1977, only against accused 2 and 3)

That the accused are guilty of the crime of CORRUPTION in contravention of section 3(b) read with sections 1, 2, 21, 24, 25 and 26 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, No 12 of 2004.

IN THAT during the period 27 April 2004 to 18 August 2005 and at or near Durban in the district of Durban, accused 2 and 3 were party to a common purpose, together with Shaik and/or the Nkobi group of companies, to directly or indirectly and wrongfully give and/or agree and/or offer to give the gratification as described in the preamble to or for the benefit of another person, to wit: accused 1 and/or his family members, in order for accused 1 to act and/or omit to act, personally and/or by influencing another person to act, in a manner:

a. that amounts to the illegal, dishonest, unauthorized, or biased exercise, carrying out or performance of any powers, duties or functions arising out of a constitutional, statutory, contractual or other obligation; and/or

b. that amounts to:

• the abuse of a position of authority
• a breach of trust; and/or
• the violation of a legal duty or a set of rules; and/or

c. designed to achieve an unjust result; and/or

d. that amounts to an unauthorized or improper inducement to do or not to do anything.

TO WIT by furthering and/or having furthered the interests of Shaik and/or the entities associated with Shaik and/or the Thomson-CSF group and/or accused 2 and/or accused 3 as set out in the preamble.

ALTERNATIVELY TO SUBCOUNT 2
(In terms of section 156 of Act 51 of 1977, only against accused 2 and 3)

That the accused are guilty of the crime of OFFERING AN UNAUTHORISED GRATIFICATION TO A PERSON WHO IS PARTY TO AN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP in contravention of section 10(b) read with sections 1, 2, 21, 25 and 26 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, No 12 of 2004.

IN THAT during the period 27 April 2004 to 14 June 2005 and at or near Durban in the district of Durban, accused Nos 2 and 3 were party to a common purpose, together with Schabir Shaik and/or the Nkobi group of companies, to directly or indirectly and wrongfully give and/or agree and/or offer to give the gratification as described in the preamble to accused 1, being a person who is party to an employment relationship as described in the preamble, either for his own benefit or for the benefit of another person, in respect of his doing any act in relation to the exercise, carrying out or performance of his powers, duties or functions within the scope of his employment relationship, more particularly as described in the preamble.

COUNT 3

NOW THEREFORE accused 1 is guilty of the crime of corruption in contravention of section 1(1)(b) read with section 3 of the Corruption Act, No 94 of 1992

IN THAT during the period prior to 30 September 1999 to 2001 and at or near Durban in the district of Durban, accused 1, upon whom the powers had been conferred and/or who had the duties as set out in the preamble, unlawfully and corruptly agreed to receive and/or received and/or obtained and/or attempted to obtain the said annual benefits, which were not legally due, from Thomson-CSF and/or accused 2 and 3 and/or with the assistance of and/or through the intermediation of accused 2 and 3, with the intention that he should commit and/or omit any act in relation to his powers and/or duties to further the interests of Thomson-CSF and/or accused 2 and 3 and/or Shaik and the Nkobi group and/or the entities associated with them, as set out in the preamble and/or to be rewarded for having committed or omitted to do any act constituting any excess of such powers or any neglect of such duties, as set out in the preamble.

IN THE FIRST ALTERNATIVE TO COUNT 3

That accused 1 is guilty of contravening section 4(a) and/or (b), read with sections 1, 4(i), 4(ii) and 8 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act, No 121 of 1998

WHEREAS accused 1 knew or ought reasonably to have known that property [to wit : the annual benefits of R500 000 per annum, as described in the preamble], was or formed part of the proceeds of unlawful activities [to wit : the crimes or contraventions of the law mentioned in the main charge and/or count 4]

In that during the period prior to 30 September 1999 to 2001 and at or near Durban in the district of Durban and/or Lynnwood and/or Waterkloof in the district of Pretoria and/or Midrand in the district of Sandton and/or Paris, France and/or Mauritius and/or at other places both within and outside the Republic unknown to the State, accused 1, acting in the furtherance of a common purpose, wrongfully and unlawfully entered into an agreement or engaged in an arrangement or transaction and/or performed any other act with one or some or all of the following:

• Shaik; and/or
• other relevant entities within the Nkobi group as described in the preamble; and/or
• Thomson-CSF; and/or
• Thomson-CSF International (France); and/or
• Perrier; and/or
• de Jomaron; and/or
• Thétard; and/or
• Thales International Africa Ltd (Mauritius)

in connection with the said property [to wit : the agreements, arrangements, transactions or other acts mentioned in the preamble relating to the payment of the bribe by covert means and/or the so-called service provider agreement and/or the Nkandla development]

Which had or was likely to have had the effect -

(i) of concealing or disguising the nature, source, location, disposition or movement of the said property or the ownership thereof or any interest which anyone may have in respect thereof, and/or

(iii) of enabling or assisting one or some or all of the following:

• accused 1; and/or
• Shaik; and/or
• other relevant entities within the Nkobi group as described in the preamble; and/or
• Thomson-CSF; and/or
• Thomson-CSF International (France); and/or
• Perrier; and/or
• de Jomaron; and/or
• Thétard; and/or
• Thales International Africa Ltd (Mauritius)

who had committed or were committing an offence, whether in the Republic or elsewhere [to wit : the offences mentioned in the main charge and count 4] -

(aa) to avoid prosecution, and/or

(bb) to remove or diminish the said property acquired directly, or indirectly, as a result of the commission of the said offence.

IN THE SECOND ALTERNATIVE TO COUNT 3

That accused 1 is guilty of contravening section 6(a), (b) or (c), read with sections 1 and 8 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act, No 121 of 1998

WHEREAS accused 1 knew or ought reasonably to have known that property [to wit : the annual benefits of R500 000 per annum, as described in the preamble] formed part of the proceeds of unlawful activities of another person [to wit : the crimes or contraventions of the law mentioned in counts 2 and/or 4 and/or the crime of corruption in contravention of section 1(1)(a) read with section 3 of the Corruption Act, No 94 of 1992, committed by the following:

• Shaik; and/or
• other relevant entities within the Nkobi group as described in the preamble; and/or
• Thomson-CSF; and/or
• Thomson-CSF International (France); and/or
• Perrier; and/or
• de Jomaron; and/or
• Thétard; and/or
• Thales International Africa Ltd (Mauritius)]

In that during the period prior to 30 September 1999 to 2001 and at or near Durban in the district of Durban and/or Lynnwood and/or Waterkloof in the district of Pretoria and/or Midrand in the district of Sandton and/or Paris, France and/or Mauritius and/or at other places both within and outside the Republic unknown to the State, accused 1, acting in the furtherance of a common purpose, wrongfully and unlawfully acquired, used, or had in his possession the said property, as described in the Preamble.

COUNT 4

NOW THEREFORE accused 2 and 3 are guilty of the crime of corruption in contravention of section 1(1)(a) read with section 3 of the Corruption Act, No 94 of 1992

IN THAT during the period prior to 30 September 1999 to 2001, and at or near Durban in the district of Durban and/or Lynnwood and/or Waterkloof in the district of Pretoria and/or Midrand in the district of Sandton and/or Paris, France and or Mauritius and/or at other places both within and outside the Republic unknown to the State, accused 2 and 3, and/or Thomson-CSF with the assistance of and/or through the intermediation of accused 2 and 3 unlawfully and corruptly agreed and/or offered to give and/or gave the abovementioned annual benefits, as described in the preamble, which were not legally due, to accused 1, upon whom the powers had been conferred and/or who had the duties as set out in the preamble, with the intention to influence accused 1 to commit and/or omit any act in relation to his powers and/or duties to further the interests of Thomson-CSF and/or accused 2 and 3 and/or Shaik and the Nkobi group and/or the entities associated with them, as set out in the preamble and/or with the intention to reward Zuma because he so acted in excess of such powers or any neglect of such duties, as set out in the preamble.

IN THE FIRST ALTERNATIVE TO COUNT 4

That accused 2 and 3 are guilty of contravening section 4(a) and/or (b), read with sections 1, 4(i), 4(ii) and 8 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act, No 121 of 1998

WHEREAS accused 2 and 3 knew or ought reasonably to have known that property [to wit : the annual benefits of R500 000 per annum, as described in the preamble], was or formed part of the proceeds of unlawful activities [to wit : the crimes or contraventions of the law mentioned in the main charge]

In that during the period prior to 30 September 1999 to 2001 and at or near Durban in the district of Durban and/or Lynnwood and/or Waterkloof in the district of Pretoria and/or Midrand in the district of Sandton and/or Paris, France and/or Mauritius and/or at other places both within and outside the Republic unknown to the State, accused 2 and 3, acting in the furtherance of a common purpose, wrongfully and unlawfully entered into an agreement or engaged in an arrangement or transaction and/or performed any other act with one or some or all of the following:

• accused 1; and/or
• Shaik; and/or
• other relevant entities within the Nkobi group as described in the preamble; and/or
• Thomson-CSF; and/or
• Thomson-CSF International (France); and/or
• Perrier; and/or
• de Jomaron; and/or
• Thétard; and/or
• Thales International Africa Ltd (Mauritius)

in connection with the said property [to wit : the agreements, arrangements, transactions or other acts mentioned in the preamble relating to the payment of the bribe by covert means and/or the so-called service provider agreement and/or the Nkandla development]

Which had or was likely to have had the effect -

(i) of concealing or disguising the nature, source, location, disposition or movement of the said property or the ownership thereof or any interest which anyone may have in respect thereof, and/or

(iv) of enabling or assisting one or some or all of the following:

• accused 1; and/or
• Shaik; and/or
• other relevant entities within the Nkobi group as described in the preamble; and/or
• Thomson-CSF; and/or
• Thomson-CSF International (France); and/or
• Perrier; and/or
• de Jomaron; and/or
• Thétard; and/or
• Thales International Africa Ltd (Mauritius)

who had committed or were committing an offence, whether in the Republic or elsewhere [to wit : the offence mentioned in count 3 and the main charge] -

(aa) to avoid prosecution, and/or

(bb) to remove or diminish the said property acquired directly, or indirectly, as a result of the commission of the said offence.

IN THE SECOND ALTERNATIVE TO COUNT 4

That accused 2 and 3 are guilty of contravening section 6(a), (b) or (c), read with sections 1 and 8 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act, No 121 of 1998

WHEREAS accused 2 and 3 knew or ought reasonably to have known that property [to wit : the annual benefits of R500 000 per annum, as described in the preamble] formed part of the proceeds of unlawful activities of another person [to wit : the crimes or contraventions of the law mentioned in counts 1 and/or 3 and/or the crime of corruption in contravention of section 1(1)(a) read with section 3 of the Corruption Act, No 94 of 1992 committed by the following:

• Shaik; and/or
• other relevant entities within the Nkobi group as described in the preamble; and/or
• Thomson-CSF; and/or
• Thomson-CSF International (France); and/or
• Perrier; and/or
• de Jomaron; and/or
• Thétard; and/or
• Thales International Africa Ltd (Mauritius)]

In that during the period prior to 30 September 1999 to 2001 and at or near Durban in the district of Durban and/or Lynnwood and/or Waterkloof in the district of Pretoria and/or Midrand in the district of Sandton and/or Paris, France and/or Mauritius and/or at other places both within and outside the Republic unknown to the State, accused 2 and 3, acting in the furtherance of a common purpose, wrongfully and unlawfully assisted the following:

• Shaik; and/or
• other relevant entities within the Nkobi group as described in the preamble; and/or
• Thomson-CSF; and/or
• Thomson-CSF International (France); and/or
• Perrier; and/or
• de Jomaron; and/or
• Thétard; and/or
• Thales International Africa Ltd (Mauritius)

To acquire, use, or have in their possession the said property, as described in the Preamble.

THANDA MGWENGWE
ACTING INVESTIGATING DIRECTOR:
DIRECTORATE OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS

ooo000ooo