Shaik defence may 'sink' Zuma
2005-08-22 23:09
Johannesburg - Schabir Shaik's failed defence against two corruption charges
on which he was found guilty, is at present being used by the State in its
case against Jacob Zuma.
Court documents in which the Scorpions applied for permission to raid the
properties of Zuma and his confidantes last week revealed that the State
planned to use Shaik's trump cards in his corruption and fraud trail against
Zuma in a bid to weaken the former deputy president's case.
This might mean that Shaik, Zuma's former financial adviser, did
considerable harm to his "political commissar" when he tried to convince
Judge Hilary Squires at the end of last year that there were legitimate
explanations for his payments to Zuma and the meetings with French arms
company Thales.
These defences were related to the two corruption charges against Shaik,
which also appear on Zuma's charge sheet.
In a sworn affidavit that formed part of last week's court documents, Johan
du Plooy, the investigating officer, indicated that Zuma might also be
charged with money-laundering and fraud and or an infringement of the
Revenue Act.
'Loan agreement'
On the first corruption charge - that Shaik over a period of about six years
paid R1.2m to or on behalf of Zuma - Shaik, via his advocate Francois van
Zyl SC, handed over a "loan agreement" to the court according to which he
had loaned Zuma R2m.
But Shaik could hand over only a copy of the alleged agreement, as Zuma had
apparently handed the original to parliament's register of members' assets.
Later during the Shaik trial it came to light that the "agreement" was also
not in parliament.
Even Julie Mahomed, Zuma's attorney at the time, who
allegedly typed the document, could not explain its disappearance.
'Ruse'
In his closing argument, prosecutor Billy Downer SC said the "loan
agreement" was a ruse - a sentiment shared by Squires in his judgment.
The State now wants to accuse Zuma of fraud and or tax evasion, as the Shaik
payments were "corrupt assets" and the "reasonable possibility" existed that
Zuma didn't declare them to either the South African Revenue Services
(SARS), or parliament, "especially since the payments were loans, according
to Shaik's defence," Du Plooy's statement read.
On the second corruption charge - that Zuma agreed to receive R500 000 as a
bribe from Thales - Shaik said the many meetings between himself, Zuma and
Thales were about a donation to Zuma's education trust.
Squires also dismissed this defence.
Scorpions
In his answer to the Scorpions' 35 questions sent to Zuma in July 2003, the axed deputy president remained silent about such conversations and denied
that he had had a meeting with Shaik and Alain Thetard, Thales's former
South African chief.
"This was contradictory to Shaik's testimony and diminished the strength and
reasonableness of Zuma's denial," said Du Plooy's statement.
The fourth preliminary charge against Zuma - namely money-laundering - also
has its roots in Shaik's denial that a "service provider agreement" was
created between Thales and his Nkobi group to cover up corrupt payments to
Zuma.
Squires found that two of Shaik's companies were indeed guilty of money
laundering.