2007-05-21

Press Statement: Sunday Times

Statement made for and on behalf of Shamim Shaik

We are on the eve of the hearing of the petition of Schabir Shaik to the Constitutional Court.

So as to co-inside with that hearing, an allegation is now made that a thesis  submitted by Shamim Shaik in 2002,  for which he was awarded a doctorate is flawed on account of plagiarism and does not represent his own unaided work.

Yet again, as we enter the doors of the Court, an attempt is made to malign the integrity of the Shaik Brothers and in a crude attempt to poison the atmosphere. 

The allegation is that he copied word for word from a paper entitled  “Refined Theory of Laminated Anisotropic Shells for the Solution of Thermal Stress Problems.” The paper was written by V.E. Verijenko, T.R. Tauchert. S.Shaik and P.Y.Tabakov and is quoted in the bibliography to the thesis.

These allegations are a travesty and its purpose is to discredit Dr. Shaik and the thesis that he submitted.

However, the facts of the matter prove otherwise:

1. Shamim Shaik is a co-author and significant contributor of the very paper that he is said to have plagiarised;
2. He made use of the paper, and that part of it which he wrote, with the knowledge and consent of his co-authors one of whom were in fact his supervisor, Prof. Viktor Verijenko.
3. The paper is mentioned in the bibliography.
4. More importantly, his co-authors deny the allegation of plagiarism, which they consider to be absurd and nothing more than a smear.

The enquiries made by the University of KwaZulu-Natal in fact made it clear that it was the standard, and internationally accepted practice, for students to incorporate work in which they are co-authors with their advisors.

The distinction between aided and unaided work is fine and the persons best placed to make that judgement are the authors themselves.   

In the field of science the concept of  “unaided work” is blurred by the fact that all knowledge is acquired, progressively, over time and each scientist stands on the shoulders of those who went before.

In the evaluation of the contribution made by Shamim Shaik, it is the judgement of his supervisors and examiners, both internally and externally, as to whether he should be awarded a doctorate that matters. 

And it was their collective judgement that his contribution was significant and that he be awarded the doctorate. The thesis was conducted under the supervision of the university and evaluated by examiners appointed at their discretion. Shamim Shaik simply performed under the direction of his supervisor and examiners and abided by their advice and directions at all times. 

If the judgement of the professors is brought into question, it is a matter for the university to investigate and give direction. To date the university has not conducted a full and complete investigation into the matter and to suggest otherwise is plain wrong. At any rate Shamim Shaik is unaware of any such investigation.

In fact, Dr. Dasrut Chetty, the Head of Communications, as late as 18h00 on the 18^th May 2007 has confirmed the fact that no independent investigation has been conducted into the allegation as yet.

Whilst we support democracy and good governance we must insist on the highest standards of due process. The publication of a wild and fanciful allegation, without adequate hard evidence or specific details, is to undermine good governance, not promote it.

We pray that the hearing of the petition of Shabir Shaik before the Constitutional Court would not be prejudiced by the publication of these fanciful allegations. 

Yunis Shaik

The statement is made for and on behalf of Shamim Shaik

With acknowledgement to Professor Verijenko.