Durban businessman Schabir Shaik was convicted in the Durban High Court on Thursday on two counts of corruption and one of fraud relating to alleged irregular financial dealings with Deputy President Jacob Zuma.
After the verdict was announced, Shaik had a look of disbelief and worry on his face, and was whispering to his lawyers.
The verdict may open the way for charges against Zuma, seen as the likely successor to President Thabo Mbeki when Mbeki’s term expires in 2009.
Speaking outside the courtroom, Makhosini Nkosi, National Prosecuting Authority spokesperson, declined to answer a question about how the judgement may affect Zuma.
He told the crowd gathered outside the court: ”I’m not going to answer that.”
State prosecutor Billy Downer said Shaik’s bail has been reinstituted and he will remain on bail until further notice.
Sentencing proceedings will begin on Friday. Shaik faces a minimum of 15 years’ imprisonment.
Opposition Democratic Alliance leader Tony Leon, speaking to SAFM shortly after the judgement, said the judgement is ”extraordinary” and has far-reaching implications.
He said: ”I like Jacob Zuma as a person … but this judgement will dig the grave of Deputy President Zuma. It is impossible for him to continue in office, and he should step down.”
‘Nothing short of ridiculous’
On Thursday, Judge Hillary Squires rejected claims that the money Shaik wanted from a French arms company was to be a donation for the Jacob Zuma Education Trust Fund and not a bribe relating to South Africa’s arms deal.
”It is nothing short of ridiculous and we regard it as false,” said Judge Squires.
He was dealing with count three of corruption against Shaik, in which the state claimed Shaik tried to get a bribe for Zuma from French arms company Thomson CSF in return for protection during investigations into irregularities in the arms deal.
On day three of judgment, Judge Squires said Thomson had come close to displeasing the South African government during the arms deal process, and by giving a donation to the deputy president’s education trust fund, there ”could be no better way to mend fences”.
Judge Squires said there was no need to use a code in the process if the matter discussed between Shaik, Zuma and Alain Thetard from the French arms company was only about the donation.
He said Shaik’s use of language in faxes, messages and when dealing with the issue of a donation were all ”incompatible” with the request for a donation.
Judge Squires said the language used was clearly meant to avoid the issue and he said Zuma himself actively pursued donations for his trust fund, which is why he even asked former president Nelson Mandela for money.
The judge said if Zuma thought there was a possibility of getting money from Thomson, it was ”highly inconceivable” that he would not have approached the French company himself.
‘General corruption’
On Wednesday, Judge Squires said there was overwhelming evidence for the case of ”general corruption” against Shaik and rejected his version of events relating to his fraud charge.
”The case is convincing and really overwhelming,” the judge said, after summing up the evidence relating to the first count of corruption, in which the state claimed that Shaik paid Deputy President Jacob Zuma at least R1,2-million in exchange for his ”political connectivity”.
On the fraud charge, Judge Squires said: ”We regard Shaik’s version as a lie.”
At the end of the first day of judgement on Tuesday, Shaik was visibly distraught. By Wednesday morning, he appeared listless, continuously shaking his head while listening to the judge.
By the end of the day, he was seen wiping what appeared to be tears from his eyes. A member of his entourage said: ”It’s just the effects of flu.”
On the ”generally corrupt” relationship between Shaik and Zuma, Judge Squires said it was clear that Shaik would not have made the payments if he did not expect anything in return.
”Generosity on this sustained scale becomes egocentric,” said the judge.
According to the judge, Shaik continued making payments to the detriment of his cash-strapped Nkobi group of companies.
Judge Squires said the payments, even if they were loans as claimed by Shaik, constituted a benefit under the definition of corruption.