Judge Hillary Squires was preparing on Wednesday morning to deliver the last 114 pages of a 165-page judgement in the Schabir Shaik fraud and corruption trial in the Durban High Court.
Squires’s secretary Margaret Parker said: ”The verdict is unlikely to be concluded by lunch time.”
She hoped it would be finished by the end of the day, but it might run into Thursday morning.
”We’re hoping his voice holds up,” said Parker.
Meanwhile, journalists and photographers were the only ones who had arrived at least an hour before the resumption of the judgement at 10am, unlike on Tuesday when a large crowd gathered on the court steps.
Television cables could be seen all across Masonic Grove which leads past the court entrance as television journalists were being made up for the day’s live broadcasts.
Shaik’s credibility is expected to be the first issue on the agenda.
On Tuesday afternoon, Squires adjourned the proceedings after just over two hours of detailing the charges against Shaik and explaining at length what the crime of corruption entailed.
He said he would start the final leg of his verdict at 10am on Wednesday, by assessing arguments for and against Shaik’s credibility.
Shaik has pleaded not guilty to two charges of corruption and one of fraud — all involving alleged irregular financial dealings relating to Deputy President Jacob Zuma, whom he served as financial adviser.
How it all began
Judge Squires said the events that gave rise to fraud and corruption charges against Shaik, allegedly involving irregular financial dealings with Deputy President Jacob Zuma, had their genesis in the 1994 change of government.
The change of government led to a range of new philosophy designed to open economic and political doors to new participants previously excluded, he said.
”Schabir Shaik was one of the expected beneficiaries,” Judge Squires said.
He gave a detailed history of Shaik’s entry into the business world and said Zuma’s former financial adviser was not slow to take up new opportunities.
But Shaik’s dealings gave rise to conflict between himself and his political home, the African National Congress.
This was apparently caused by a belief that Shaik was using his ties to the party to strike business deals with the intent of keeping the profits to himself, Judge Squires said.
This was at the time when the ANC was millions of rands in debt.
The judge said Shaik was aware early on of opportunities for profitable business in the defence industry if his Nkobi group of companies could join forces with foreign entities.
It was widely expected by 1995 that South Africa would have to upgrade its defence systems.
The judge gave a breakdown of what constitutes corruption and pointed out the questions that need to be answered in the case before him.
These include whether payments made to Zuma under the first charge of corruption were done with the intent of influencing him to use his political office to promote Shaik’s business interests.
If the payments were loans, as claimed by Shaik, the court still has to determine whether these constituted a benefit as defined under corruption laws, Judge Squires said.
On the second count, one of fraud, it has to be determined whether Shaik was aware that the write-off of payments to Zuma had been done irregularly.
On the other corruption charge, Judge Squires said, he would have to decide whether Shaik had indeed sought a bribe of R500 000 per year for Zuma, in return for which the deputy president was to protect the interests of Nkobi’s French business partner Thomson-CSF. – Sapa