Judge Hillary Squires questioned on Wednesday the true nature of fraud and corruption accused Schabir Shaik’s friendship with Deputy President Jacob Zuma.
”Genuine friendship would not have resorted to such blatant advertising,” Judge Squires said during his second day of judgement in the Durban High Court.
He pointed out the instances when Shaik ”emblazoned” the unofficial title of financial adviser and economic adviser to Zuma on letterheads and business cards.
Judge Squires also mentioned how Shaik invited potential joint venture partners with his company Nkobi to meet Zuma.
Shaik has pleaded not guilty to two charges of corruption and one of fraud — all related to alleged irregular financial dealings involving Zuma.
The judge said that according to Shaik’s evidence, his relationship with Zuma was ”fortified by a sense of loyalty and camaraderie” that started during the days of the anti-apartheid struggle.
Summing up the evidence, Judge Squires said Zuma had told Shaik he considered leaving politics because of his ”precarious financial position”.
The judge said Shaik did not want this to happen, but instead of stabilising and managing Zuma’s financial affairs, Shaik continued to make it possible for Zuma to live beyond his means.
This happened at the time when the Nkobi Group — Shaik’s companies — had not yet started paying dividends and could not afford it.
This, Squires said, ”flies in the face of ordinary common sense”.
He said Zuma could not repay Shaik with money, but paid him with the use of his name.
”He [Shaik] embarked on a never-ending series of payments … because he realised the possible advantages to provide the means to remain in Zuma’s good books and retain a lifestyle beyond what he [Zuma] could afford.”
Judge Squires said the loans smacked of ”long-term self-interest” than of friendship.
Under the unblinking gaze of the television camera, an impassive Shaik took notes for most of the morning session.
Credibility questioned
Earlier, Judge Squires resumed judgement by giving an overview of Shaik’s credibility.
Judge Squires said there were several contradictions in Shaik’s testimony and that he had a tendency to blame others for acts or omissions that should have been his responsibility.
He said some of Shaik’s answers were overstated, but ”it could have been due to vagueness of recollection” because the events might have happened six or seven years ago.
Judge Squires said Shaik’s false claims about his qualifications were ”a silly thing to do”, but were perhaps understandable because he had a new enterprise and wanted to attract customers.
He said the disturbing aspect was Shaik’s conspicuous lack of any embarrassment or remorse.
As Judge Squires outlined some of the issues on which Shaik had been cross-examined, he said Shaik ”had no scruples” and that his actions showed a ”tendency to avoid an unwanted result”.
However, the judge pointed out that in a criminal trial ”premium has to be placed on truth”.
He said Shaik was not an impressive witness. In many cases, his answers were long and irrelevant and he showed ”flashes of candour”. This, the judge said, ”could have been the result of natural verbosity”.
He also said Shaik had no coherent answers in some cases.
‘Zuma did intervene’
There was clear evidence of a readiness on the part of Zuma to intervene to the benefit of the business interests of Shaik, who was his financial adviser, the judge said.
He said: ”Zuma did indeed intervene to try and assist.”
He mentioned several instances where the deputy president got involved in Shaik’s attempts to secure business contracts.
”There is evidence of Shaik’s readiness to turn to Zuma for help, and of Zuma’s readiness to give it,” the judge said.
Judge Squires said it was clear that the only assistance Zuma could provide was using his political office. He was in no position to lend Shaik any money.
What has to be determined, however, is whether alleged payments made by Shaik to Zuma can be linked to the assistance the deputy president provided.
”The essential question is the existence of a causal link between the payments and the assistance. Were these the results Shaik were after?” the judge said.
Strained voice
By teatime on Wednesday, it was clear Judge Squires’s voice was increasingly under strain. Before the start of the day’s proceedings, his secretary Margaret Parker said there was a possibility the judgment might run into Thursday morning.
The courtroom was packed on Wednesday with even more legal heavyweights than when judgement started on Tuesday. Shaik was again surrounded by his brothers, his wife, his spin doctor and other supporters.
The former Scorpions investigator who started off the investigation into the Shaik case several years ago, Gerda Ferreira, who appeared as a state witness, was also in court.
On Tuesday afternoon, Judge Squires adjourned the proceedings after just more than two hours of detailing the charges against Shaik and explaining at length what the crime of corruption entailed. — Sapa