Issued by Office of the Presidency

Attention News Editors

For immediate release

15 August 2003 

My lawyers today submitted to the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), my responses to the questions posed to me.

I was informed officially on 30 May 2003 by the NDPP that the National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa (NPA) was conducting an investigation against me, relating to corruption regarding the arms procurement process.

The answers have been sent directly to the NPA.

However, I realise that some matters need to be clarified publicly particularly those that have been published or broadcast in the media, in what I consider to be almost a trial by media.

I must emphasise that a number of the questions asked by the NPA intrude on my private relationship with several people who had nothing to do with the arms deal process.

They are also characterised by extreme vagueness and are unrelated to the arms deal investigation.

I have responded to all the questions that I consider to be relevant to the arms deal investigation which I believe to be the subject matter of this investigation.

I have requested the NPA to explain the relevance to the arms deal, of the questions which intrude into my private life and private relationships with other people, and those which suggest an investigation into the affairs of the ANC.

It is such questions and the nature of the investigation itself that has made me to question the real motives.

According to my understanding, the initial allegation which started the investigations against me, was that I had influenced the final *1 awarding of contracts in the arms procurement process.

A subsequent allegation was that I sought to protect the French company from investigation.

Any perusal of the chronology of this process, and the manner in which it was conducted, which I have outlined in detail in my answers sent to the NPA, clearly indicates that I would not have been able to influence the process in any way.

At Cabinet level, the main recommendations were made by a Cabinet committee set up in 1998 when I was still MEC in kwaZulu Natal.

By the time I became Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa, the agreement were close to finality. *2

The Allegations on Soliciting a Bribe

The core allegation against me, which has also been repeated untested in the media on daily basis, is that I attempted to solicit R500 000 per year to protect a French company from being investigated for contraventions arising from South Africa's arms procurement process.

In that regard, I find it strange and puzzling that out of the 35 questions sent to me, not a single one of them asks me to respond to this key allegation.

It is alleged that I attended a meeting in Durban on 11 March 2000 with Schabir Shaik and Mr Alain Thetard of Thomson CSF at which it is alleged that I solicited the bribe.

As said before in a reply to a parliamentary question, I did not meet Mr Thetard on 11 March 2000. I have never had any discussions with any French company or individual about finances. *3

The allegations apparently arise from an encrypted fax, which originated in French and was translated into English, I have since gathered.

I have never seen the alleged fax which is said to have been prepared in the French language, and do not know whether such a document actually exists.

My lawyers have asked the NPA for handwritten and typed copies of the document in the French language.

Surely, if the Scorpions know the identity of the author of the letter, they should have sought clarity from him or her and resolved the matter by now.

I have said before, and I repeat, that

*  I have never attempted to solicit any bribe.

*  I have never used my public office to advance the private business interest of any person.

*  I have never discussed with Schabir or anyone else for that matter, the issue of protecting Thomson/Thales or any other company or individual from the investigation of the Joint Investigation Team into the Strategic Defence Procurement.

It is mind boggling as to how anyone could manage to influence an investigation that was being conducted by three different agencies.*4

Three years is a long time for any investigating authority not to establish whether or not an attempted soliciting of a bribe took place.

And why am I not being asked questions relating to this key matter?

This once again makes me question the real motives of the investigation.

As I look into the whole situation, the mystery deepens.

The Relationship with Schabir Shaik

My association with Mr Schabir Shaik spans more than 20 years and has its beginnings in the struggle against apartheid, having begun while he was a cadre of the ANC operating in underground structures, and I having been his commander from outside the country, while he was operating internally.

Our relationship grew over the years, and we are friends and comrades.

He also serves as my financial adviser and administers all my financial affairs.

Schabir's unit was tasked with, amongst other things the channelling of funds from outside the country to underground units inside the country.

In 1987 he was called to London and it is here that I had physical contact with him for the first time.

During these years, Schabir received and dispensed hundreds of thousands of rands for the ANC and other structures inside the country.

His management of the funds was efficient and I came to trust him completely.

After the unbanning of the ANC, Schabir continued to play a role in funding and financing the ANC and its activities, either from his own resources or through raising funds from other sources.*5

I have no financial interest in any of Schabir Shaik's businesses.

I also have no interests and/or shareholdings in either Thales or the Nkobi Group.

I have on occasions supported historically disadvantaged business persons including Schabir Shaik, through giving credibility references when asked to do so by potential business partners.

I did this also as part of my line function as MEC for Economic Affairs in the KwaZulu-Natal provincial government.

Conclusion

The allegations against me are baseless, defamatory and grossly unfair.

I have for the last three years endured the investigation by the NPA, which was secret at first.

I maintained my silence as I hoped the investigation would be concluded expediently.

I have tolerated leaks to the media, leading to sensational coverage, which has cast aspersions on my integrity.

There have been a lot of debates in the recent past by commentators and those who believe they are opinion makers, who have said how our democracy was being tested by this investigation and questioned the sustainability of our hard-won democracy.

I am a strong believer in democracy.

I fought for it and will never undermine it.

I will defend it with everything at my disposal if the need arises.

That is precisely why I kept quiet for the last three years to allow our investigative institution to do its work unhindered.

I did not want to give an impression that I do not want to be investigated because of my position, because if I did, it would have been an abuse of power and authority, going against the very grain of the fundamentals of our democracy.

I also appreciate that nobody from government has sought to interfere with this investigation or tried to stop it in any way.

Therefore no-one can question the standing of this government with regards to fighting corruption.

My only quarrel with the investigation, as said before, has been the methods employed.

I am also concerned about double standards of commentators who have remained silent over the last three years and have not questioned the length of time the probe has taken.

However, when they learnt that a set of questions had been given to me on July 9, they started demanding that I respond in a short space of time, giving an impression that I was delaying the investigation.

They have not called upon the NPA to charge me or take me to court which is actually where I should be answering questions to clear my name.

I believe I should be afforded my rights as a citizen of this country, and protected by our Constitution, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

I have said many times before that anyone who thinks he has a case against me should take me to court and prove it *6, and not engage in a propaganda war and smear campaign.

This investigation reminds me of Shakespeare's Macbeth when he said after a long soliloquy "... It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." *7

I hope that with the answering of the questions this would assist the investigators to conclude the matter as soon as possible, otherwise I would once again question the real motives of the investigation.

Enquiries :

Lakela Kaunda
082 782 2575
The Presidency
Pretoria

With acknowledgement to the Office of the Presidency.

Related Article : Deputy President Zuma's Press Statement of 30 July 2003

*1 Again the disingenuity of the respondent - it was not only the "final" awarding of contracts, but the awarding fullstop.

*2 Zuma became Deputy President in June 1999 - the contracts were only signed on 3 December 1999.

Furthermore Zuma was Leader of Government Business in Parliament from 1995. Chippy Shaikh joined the DoD in the same year as head of planning and later in 1997 as Chief of Acquisitions. There was plenty of opportunity for Zuma to influence the selection process in conjunction with persons like Chippy Shaikh, Tony Yengeni, etc. - ultimately for his own benefit.

*3 Zuma is a liar. He met Thetard and Shaikh on at least Friday 10 March 2000, not Saturday 11 March 2000. There were most likely other meetings in Paris and possibly Malaysia.

*4 It transpired that is was fairly easy to influence the joint investigation - once Zuma and co got rid of the troublesome involvement of the Special Investigation Unit. Just ask those other liars to the People and Parliament, Shauket Allie Fakie CA(SA) and Selby Allan Baqwa SC.

*5 Other sources like profits from the Arms Deal and from Thomson-CSF.

*6 The brilliant strategy of Adv Bulelani Ngcuka and Dr Penuell Maduna found a political solution whereby the National Prosecuting will not be initiating such prosecution. This will have to be left to Squires J or to a private prosecution.

*7 The idiots never stop.