The Schabir Shaik fraud and corruption trial ended on Wednesday afternoon with Judge Hillary Squires saying a judgement will not take place before May 30.
”Like all rivers that eventually reach the sea, we have reached the sea,” Squires said at the end of the case.
Squires did not set down a date for judgement, saying the court needs time to consider all the arguments put before it. He said judgement will not take place before May 30 and will definitely happen after that.
Squires thanked defence advocate Francois van Zyl and prosecutor Billy Downer for meticulously presenting their cases to court and said their good working relationship had made the task of the court easier.
The trial started in October last year.
Earlier on Wednesday, the defence wrapped up its closing argument.
Defence advocate Francois van Zyl gave alternative submissions should the evidence given in relation to charge number three not be accepted as the truth.
Count three of corruption against Shaik deals with an alleged bribe of R500 000 per year for Deputy President Jacob Zuma.
”The mere fact that an accused is untruthful in his evidence does not necessarily mean that he has committed the offence charged. There may be other reasons why he decided not to tell the truth,” said Van Zyl.
According to the state, a bribe was solicited by Shaik from French arms company Thomson CSF in exchange for protection during investigations into arms-deal irregularities.
Shaik has maintained that he only asked the French company for a donation for Zuma’s education trust fund. On Wednesday, Van Zyl said: ”The only evidence before the court involving Zuma or the alleged agreement was in the encrypted fax.”
If Shaik had only used Zuma to convince Alain Thetard, who was the French company’s representative in South Africa and author of the encrypted fax, to pay him R500 000 per year without Zuma’s knowledge, then Shaik and Zuma ”did not commit the offence in question”.
However, Van Zyl said Shaik may have tried to defraud Thetard.
He said there was ”a reasonable possibility” that Shaik misrepresented the position to Thetard in order to get the R500 000 per year from Thomson until the African Defence System dividends paid out.
On Tuesday, Van Zyl told the court that Thetard himself lacked credibility and that he could have made up the bribe agreement to get money from his company for himself.
Van Zyl said: ”As he [Shaik] could not admit his deceit in evidence, he decided to give a false explanation. In these circumstances, he should not be convicted simply because he was not truthful with this honourable court.”
He questioned what Zuma had been told or what was explained to him at the March 2000 meeting with Shaik and Thetard in Durban.
”What was Zuma told by accused one? That is the whole key to this,” he said.
Van Zyl reminded the court that Shaik had been a conduit for bringing sums of money into and out of the country for the African National Congress during the struggle against apartheid.
”He is not someone who is unaware of deceitful ways.”
Responding to the defence’s final argument, prosecutor Billy Downer said: ”It is surprising and the first time in my experience that the court at this late stage has been asked to speculate on the true version of events.”
Downer said the focus of the trial is on Shaik, not Zuma.
”But that does not mean that an examination of Mr Zuma’s constitutional duties was not relevant,” referring to the alleged role Zuma played in assisting Shaik in his business interests. — Sapa