It was an agony drawn out over three days under the glare of TV coverage.
Because of ill-health, Judge Hillary Squires’s clinical and devastating demolition of Schabir Shaik was delivered in long volleys, punctuated by overnight breaks when the accused had ample time to contemplate the unfolding nightmare.
Throughout the trial, beginning last October, Shaik maintained an engaging cockiness, at the cost of underlying stress that occasionally spilled over into confrontations with a policeman, the media or prosecutors.
Arriving for the start of the judgement, he looked grim, but was bolstered by his entourage — family, in-laws, body-guards, lawyers and spin-matron Ranjeni Munusamy. His brother Mo raised a fist and shouted, “Viva!” the small crowd responded good-naturedly.
At the end of day one, Shaik could still muster a smile. By the end of the second day, with evidence on count one, corruption, and count two, fraud, confirmed and Shaik’s credibility judicially shredded, he and his backers appeared stunned. They milled around the courtyard, trying to absorb what had happened — and the prospect of conviction on count three, of soliciting a R500 000 bribe for Zuma.
“It’s bad,” said Mo, “another terrible night.”
The judge crisply set out the issues. Count one: Were Shaik’s payments to Zuma corrupt gifts to secure his business support, or loans from a friend? Count two: Was Shaik party to the decision to fraudulently write off money he owed his company, including payments to Zuma, or was it an auditors’ scheme unknown to him? Count three: Were meetings between Shaik, Zuma and executives of French arms company Thomson CSF about a charitable donation or a bribe for Zuma’s political protection?
It became clear that the prosecution’s detailed presentation had paid off, particularly the decision to establish a narrative context for Shaik’s actions with graphics and timelines. The judge said the breadth of the evidence, with more than 40 witnesses and “an avalanche of documents”, served as “the dots, which, when joined by the logic of cause and effect”, painted a compelling picture.
Several themes were crucial to the prosecution. One was Shaik’s early awareness of the coming arms deal — and the fact that South Africa’s African Defence Systems was in pole position for local contracts. A second was evidence on the importance of backroom lobbying to defence contracting.
Pierre Moynot, a Thomson CSF executive, confirmed, the judge noted, “with charming Gallic candour” that such deals were political and attempts to secure political patronage “standard”.
Also key was Shaik’s seduction by the Malaysian business model: a heady mix of empowerment and patronage in which selected businesses were fronts for the ruling party, which used government’s contracting muscle.
Importantly, the prosecution showed Shaik’s Malaysian approach was a bridge too far for the ANC. The judge cited a 1995 letter to Shaik by then-ANC secretary general Arnold Stofile, instructing him to stop presenting himself as the party’s representative and cease projects with the Malaysians established on that basis.
Nevertheless, the judge said Shaik reaped the rewards of being seen as an ANC agent.
That established another theme — Shaik’s business reliance on “political connectivity”. The judge quoted Shaik’s ex-business partner, Themba Sono, as saying Shaik punted such connectivity as enabling him to deliver contracts to anyone hooked up with his Nkobi group.
Shaik’s secretary, Bianca Singh, had reinforced the point by relating Shaik’s comment about carrying Vaseline because he was repeatedly “fucked by politicians” — but that he did not mind this, as he got what he wanted.
The judge shredded Shaik’s credibility as a witness — Shaik was a man “untroubled by a resort to duplicity or falsehood to gain one’s end”.
On count one, he found Shaik paid Zuma when his business could not afford it. “No rational businessman would conduct his business in this way without expecting anything in return.”
Without the means to pay him, Zuma could only offer his political office — and Shaik must have foreseen this. Shaik also repeatedly referred to his relationship with Zuma to attract investors. “Genuine friendship would not have resorted to such blatant advertising,” the judge found.
Documents purporting to record payments to Zuma as interest-bearing loans were probably a sham, designed to deal with legislation requiring Zuma to publicise the benefits from Shaik.
On count two, the judge rejected Shaik’s claim that he was unaware of the fraudulent write-off of R1,2-million.
On count three, of soliciting a R500 000 per annum bribe on Zuma’s behalf, Judge Squires rejected as “ridiculous” Shaik’s story that the money discussed with Thomson CSF was a charitable donation.
The linchpin of the state’s case was the encrypted fax drafted by Thomson’s representative Alain Thetard for his superiors.
The judge found the fax spoke clearly about a March 2000 meeting where Zuma confirmed Shaik’s earlier request for the yearly payment of R500 000 for Zuma. Its quid pro quo was that Zuma would protect Thomson CSF during the arms deal investigation and support future projects.
Squires said a wealth of circumstantial evidence indicated that the fax correctly described the 2000 meeting.
He noted that the French were concerned about the investigation and allegations in a City Press article alleging corruption and naming Thomson.
At the same time Shaik’s companies were in trouble and struggling to maintain payments to Zuma. Zuma’s financial needs had not abated since he was appointed deputy president — indeed, he planned to build a homestead at Nkandla costing R2-millon, which he could not afford.
The judge found the language of the correspondence between Shaik and the French did not suggest a charitable donation, and that the “service provider agreement” between Shaik and Thomson in late 2000 was a sham to disguise payments to Zuma under the agreement described in the encrypted fax. About R250 000 paid on by Shaik to the Development Africa Trust was for Zuma’s benefit.
Judge Squires also rejected Shaik’s alternative plea that, if the fax was true, it was reasonably possible that Shaik had deceived Zuma to pocket the money himself and that Zuma knew nothing about the bribe.