State eyes ANC deputy after 'corrupt relationship' confirmed
The Star - Online
Tuesday, November 07, 2006 Edition 1
Karyn Maughan and Gill Gifford
The strong rejection of Schabir Shaik's fraud and corruption appeal by the Supreme Court of Appeal has given the state renewed vigour to charge former deputy president Jacob Zuma with corruption.
"This is one of the things we were waiting for," state advocate Billy Downer told The Star shortly after the SCA's adamant rejection of Shaik's fraud and corruption appeal in Bloemfontein yesterday. Shaik faces a 15-year jail sentence.
Downer - who led the prosecution against Shaik and the state's halted case against Zuma - said he was "gratified and very happy" by the appeal court's unanimous decision that Shaik's appeal was "without merit".
"It just confirms what we have said all along Â… we believed in every single one of our arguments," said Downer.
Echoing comments made by National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) spokesperson Makhosini Nkosi, Downer said the eventual decision on how and when to prosecute Zuma had to be taken by National Director of Public Prosecutions Vusi Pikoli.
Nkosi said Pikoli's decision would also depend on the finalisation of legal disputes related to search-and-seizure operations conducted on Zuma's and his lawyers' offices.
In its judgment, the SCA said Shaik had had a "sustained corrupt relationship" with Zuma.
Zuma's aide, Ranjeni Munusamy, yesterday said Zuma would decide whether to comment on the judgment at the end of the week, after he returned from an overseas visit.
The SCA ruling - given by Supreme Court judges Craig Howie, Lex Mpathi, Piet Streicher, Jonathan Heher and Mohammed Navsa - will give Zuma plenty to think about.
The judges accepted that the state had proved the existence of a "corrupt relationship" between Shaik and Zuma, and rejected Shaik's claims that the R1,2-million payments he made to and on behalf of Zuma consisted of gifts, loans and donations to the ANC.
"There was never a genuine intention to reflect any specific amount as actually owing by Zuma to Shaik. That, in turn, compels the question as to whether there was a genuine indebtedness at all," the judges found.
Addressing Shaik's claims that Zuma had insisted that certain of the payments to him be considered as loans - and that certain documentation was drawn up to that effect - the appeal court said there was a "strong inference that the debt documentation was contrived to be held in readiness in case Shaik's apparent beneficence was queried".
The judges pointed out that the forensic accounting evidence produced by the state showed that Shaik's companies were in no position to be giving Zuma loans.
"Zuma, on the other hand, had no realistic prospect of being able to repay the amount by which he was benefiting. The present analysis therefore begins with the stark financial truth that Shaik could not afford to play Samaritan, and Zuma could not afford to borrow.
"At the very outset, therefore, the inference presents itself that some ulterior reason moved Shaik to expend on Zuma what he did.
"There is, in our view, only one reasonable inference to be drawn. It is that, in making the payments in issue (whether as inducement or reward), Shaik intended to influence Zuma, in furtherance of the business interests of Shaik and his companies, to act in conflict with the duties imposed on Zuma Â… by the constitution."
The decision comes two months after the state suffered a humiliating blow in its efforts to prosecute Zuma and French arms company Thint for corruption in the Pietermaritzburg High Court.
Judge Herbert Msimang refused the NPA's application for a postponement of the case and struck it from the roll, slamming the state for making use of documentation seized during unlawful search-and-seizure operations. At that stage, Zuma was expected to stand trial on so-called "mirror image" charges for which Shaik was convicted.
He faced a charge of benefiting from his allegedly corrupt relationship with Shaik to the tune of about R1,2-million and was also accused of being party to Shaik arranging a bribe from French arms company Thales (now Thint).
In exchange for a R500 000 payment, Zuma allegedly agreed to protect the company from a government investigation into the multibillion-rand arms deal.