To enjoy the full Mail & Guardian online experience: please upgrade your browser
Stefaans Brummer and Sam Sole
22 Oct 2004 08:06
A forensic report prepared for the prosecution in State v Schabir Shaik paints such a dismal picture of Deputy President Jacob Zuma’s finances that his contention that he lived off “loans” rather than donations has to be questioned.
Late last year Zuma was cleared by Parliament’s ethics committee on charges that he had not declared “benefits” received. The African National Congress majority on the committee accepted Zuma’s assurance that payments made to him, or on his behalf, constituted interest-bearing loans.
But the forensic report, finalised by consultants KPMG in April, undermines Zum’s explanation.
It says he incurred debts when he could not afford to repay them; that R1,25-million in transfers from Shaik and the Nkobi group were not treated in the accounting records of Nkobi, Shaik or Zuma as loans; and that Shaik and the Nkobi group generally had to dig deeper into their own overdrafts to make the payments to Zuma.
The report details the R1,25-million Zuma allegedly received from Shaik and his companies after 1995, and another R1,47-million from other sources.
The report was handed to Judge Hillary Squires on Thursday.
The report says: “It is apparent ... that Zuma experienced financial difficulty from as early as January 1995 â€¦ A general pattern emerges from the analysis of the financial position of Zuma indicating that debts were incurred at times when, as is evident from the subsequent repayment history, he could not settle the debts with the means at his disposal. There were times when not even the first payment due cleared the bank.”
Here are some of the instances where Zuma, according to the report, incurred debt and had to be bailed out by benefactors:
Create Account | Lost Your Password?