Zuma was 'ready to help Shaik'

2005-06-01 11:35

Durban - There was clear evidence of a readiness on the part of deputy president Jacob Zuma to intervene to the benefit of the business interests of his financial adviser Schabir Shaik, Judge Hillary Squires said in the Durban High Court on Wednesday.

Giving judgment in Shaik's fraud and corruption trial, Squires said: "Zuma did indeed intervene to try and assist."

He mentioned several instances where the deputy president got involved in Shaik's attempts to secure business contracts.

"There is evidence of Shaik's readiness to turn to Zuma for help, and of Zuma's readiness to give it," the judge said.

Shaik has pleaded not guilty to two charges of corruption and one of fraud - all related to alleged irregular financial dealings involving Zuma.

'Political assistance'

Squires said it was clear that the only assistance Zuma could provide was using his political office. He was in no position to lend Shaik any money.

What had to be determined, however, was whether alleged payments made by Shaik to Zuma could be linked to the assistance the deputy president provided.

"The essential question is the existence of a causal link between the payments and the assistance. Were these the results Shaik were after?" the judge said.

By tea-time on Wednesday it was clear Squires's voice was increasingly under strain. Before the start of the day's proceedings, his secretary Margaret Parker said there was a possibility to the judgment might run into Thursday morning.

Earlier, Squires said Shaik's credibility was questionable. Squires said there were several contradictions in Shaik's testimony and that he had a tendency to blame others for acts or omissions, which should have been his responsibility.

He said some of Shaik's answers were overstated but "it could have been due to vagueness of recollection" because the events might have happened six or seven years ago.

Squires said there were several contradictions in Shaik's testimony and that he had a tendency to blame others for acts or omissions which should have been his responsibility.

False claims 'a silly thing to do'

He said some of Shaik's answers were overstated but "it could have been due to vagueness of recollection" because the events might have happened six or seven years ago.

Squires said Shaik's false claims about his qualifications were "a silly thing to do" but were perhaps understandable because he had a new enterprise and wanted to attract customers.

Squires said the disturbing aspect was Shaik's conspicuous lack of any embarrassment or remorse.

As Squires outlined some of the issues which Shaik had been cross-examined on he said Shaik "had no scruples" and that his actions showed a "tendency to avoid an unwanted result".

However, Squires pointed out that in a criminal trial "premium has to be placed on truth".

He said Shaik was not an impressive witness. In many cases his answers were long and irrelevant and he showed "flashes of candour". This, the judge said "could have been the result of natural verbosity".

- SAPA