Shaik-Zuma relationship aired

2005-07-26 22:33

Durban - Friendship and camaraderie, not self-interest, were behind payments by Durban businessman Schabir Shaik to former deputy president Jacob Zuma, Durban High Court was told on Tuesday.

Defence advocate Francois Van Zyl SC told Judge Hilary Squires: "The payments to Zuma started during 1997 in an attempt by (Shaik) to assist Mr Zuma to get out of the debt trap in which he found himself.

"Later, the assistance was primarily aimed at the education of Mr Zuma's children. Not a single payment was linked to any specific act by Mr Zuma in the interests of (Shaik) or any of his companies."

Shaik is asking the court for leave to appeal against his conviction on two counts of corruption and one of fraud involving Zuma, for which he received a 15-year sentence in effect.

Judge Squires said he would give judgment in the application, which was opposed by the State, on Friday morning.

'Deep-rooted friendship'

Van Zyl argued that the court had failed to take into account the enduring friendship between the two men, which he said was forged during the anti-apartheid struggle years.

"The court erred in rejecting the long-standing and deep-rooted friendship between (Shaik) and Mr Zuma as the reason why (Shaik) assisted Mr Zuma with his financial problems."

Prosecutor Billy Downer SC rejected this argument.

"The court's appraisal of the probabilities is far more nuanced than a simple choice between one or other cause."

Shaik was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment on each of the two corruption charges and another three years for fraud, but the sentences were to run concurrently.

Zuma was subsequently relieved of his duties, and is to go on trial on related charges in October.

Van Zyl objected to the sentences imposed in each of the charges on which Shaik was found guilty.

'Uninformed public criticism'

In counter-argument, Downer said there was no reasonable prospect of another court coming to a different conclusion on Squires' analysis of the evidence.

Leave to appeal should not be granted merely because of a judge's natural reluctance to be seen to consider his own judgment as indubitably correct.

"The court ought not to grant leave simply because the matter is controversial or has elicited uninformed public criticism, as has been the case in the present matter," he said.

Shaik appeared in high spirits as he arrived at court in the morning clutching what appeared to be a string of prayer beads.

- SAPA