The investigators responsible for uncovering possible irregularities in South Africa’s multibillion rand arms deal will be quizzed in the Schabir Shaik fraud and corruption trial when it resumes on Monday.
Forensic auditor Johan van der Walt will be back in the witness box after previously taking the court on a 16-day journey to explain the paper trail linking Shaik and Deputy President Jacob Zuma.
He will be followed by advocate Gerda Ferreira — a former deputy director in the National Prosecuting Authority. In 2000 Ferreira was tasked with an overall investigation into arms deal irregularities but left in 2003 to take up a post as head of forensics at Nedbank.
Prosecutor Billy Downer said he was still consulting with other witnesses who would possibly take the stand on Monday.
On Tuesday it will be the turn of senior special investigator Johan du Plooy who said he was given the job of investigating the ”Shaik leg” of the arms deal investigation in 2001.
Also expected in the witness box on Tuesday is special investigator Isak du Plooy, who joined the investigation in 2002.
At least 40 witnesses have already taken the stand in the trial which started in October.
The main accused is Durban businessman Schabir Shaik and his Nkobi group of companies. He faces two charges of corruption and one of fraud.
The state alleges that Shaik and Zuma had a ”generally corrupt relationship” and that Shaik paid Zuma at least R1,2-million in an attempt to secure a slice of the controversial arms deal.
Shaik argued that their friendship stretched back to the struggle days and that they had a R2-million revolving loan agreement. Shaik is also accused of attempting to solicit a R500 000 per annum bribe for Zuma from French arms company
Thomson-CSF.
This, the state alleges, was in exchange for protection during investigations into arms deal irregularities. Thomson-CSF and Nkobi won the naval corvette contract under the umbrella of African Defence Systems.
Downer said once all the state witnesses were done with their testimony, the two legal teams would argue the admissibility of about 20 documents as evidence. – Sapa