It took eight months of court time, thousands of pages of evidence and several witnesses before the Durban High Court on Thursday finally declared local businessman Schabir Shaik guilty on all charges of fraud and corruption against him.
Despite this, a weak-looking Shaik, whose charges all related to irregular financial dealings with Deputy President Jacob Zuma, maintained that he is innocent.
”I walk in the light of my Lord. I am innocent. I will hold that view till the day that I meet Him … don’t lose faith in our Lord, because I don’t.”
However, it was not the same man who confidently entered courtroom A last October. This was a timid Shaik who looked greyer and visibly older than he had at the start of the marathon trial.
Shaik’s brother Mo told journalists and members of the public who mobbed them outside the court that the conviction was ”not something we expected”.
Zuma ‘must have known’
Deputy President Jacob Zuma must have been aware of bribes sought by Schabir Shaik on his behalf, Durban High Court Judge Hillary Squires said on Thursday in convicting Shaik of fraud and corruption.
He dismissed a scenario sketched by Shaik’s defence team that the businessman might have deceived Zuma in a bid to pocket the money himself.
”If a prize were awarded for tenacious ingenuity, this argument would be a strong contender,” the judge said.
He said Zuma was aware of and used encoded language designed to clinch the bribery deal with French arms company Thomson-CSF — in turn for which Thomson was to receive protection from the probe into South Africa’s multibillion-rand arms deal, in which it was awarded a tender.
”The only way Zuma would have known of such a code … was through Shaik,” Judge Squires said in a 165-page judgement.
At meetings attended by the three men, Shaik’s role was to ensure that ”Zuma understood [Thomson official Alain] Thetard and that Thetard understood Zuma”, he said.
If it were true that Shaik was acting as a ”dishonest broker” with the aim of pocketing the money himself, he would not have arranged the end agreement in the presence of both parties.
”It is the kind of risk no person bent on such subterfuge would run,” the judge said.
Scopa inquiry
Questioning arguments that Zuma publicly encouraged a parliamentary standing committee on public accounts (Scopa) inquiry into the arms deal, Judge Squires said a ”far more reliable guide” to the deputy president’s feelings could be found in a letter he signed and dated January 19 2001, to the committee’s then chairperson Gavin Woods.
In it, Zuma informed Woods of a presidential decision not to issue the proclamation required for the investigation Woods had sought into the arms deal.
Woods had described the letter as ”unique in its hostility, sarcasm and untrue statements”, the judge said.
”It is almost as if the writer is taking special delight in rubbing the collective nose of Scopa, and Woods in particular, in the rejection of the recommendation.
”This is not the attitude of someone who is supportive of the investigation being pursued by Scopa.”
Judge Squires dismissed the defence’s contention that there was no evidence showing that Zuma sought to protect or promote Thomson’s business interests.
He also rejected Shaik’s explanation that the money being asked for was, in fact, meant for Zuma’s education trust, describing it as ”nothing short of ridiculous”.
Had it in fact been a donation rather than a bribe, there would have been no reason for the coded language used in correspondence, or to try so hard to persuade the company to comply, the judge said.
There would have been no better way for Thomson to mend fences with the South African government than by making a donation that would please Zuma, he said.
”It is not credible that the company would not have had the public-relations expertise to exploit such an opportunity.”
There was no evidence that the trust ever anticipated a donation, or that such a donation had been pursued by Zuma, as he had done in many occasions in the past.
”If he [Zuma] had genuinely believed Thomson was thinking of a donation, it’s incredible that he himself did not try to actively pursue the matter.”
The evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the money sought from Thomson was intended for Zuma’s benefit, Judge Squires said.
Prosecution
Welcoming the verdict, the National Prosecuting Authority declined to say whether Zuma’s prosecution is the next step.
”The national director [Vusi Pikoli] will need to consider the judgement,” spokesperson Makhosini Nkosi said.
”If there is anything to be done about it [Zuma] … it will be done,” he told reporters at the court.
Asked if a prosecution of the deputy president is possible, Nkosi said: ”I am not going to answer that.”
Sentencing proceedings are to start on Friday, with argument in aggravation of sentence. Shaik was freed on R100 000 bail and has to surrender his passport to investigators.
Following the conviction, prosecutor Billy Downer told the court the state intends invoking legal provisions allowing it to seize the proceeds of the crimes of which Shaik was convicted. He gave no details.
‘A dark cloud over the deputy president’
Inkatha Freedom Party leader Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi said the verdict will hang ”like a dark cloud over the deputy president”.
”I regret that the deputy president did not have an opportunity to defend himself in court when the public protector, Mr Bulelani Ngcuka, said that there was a prima facie case of corruption against him.
”It is a basic rule of jurisprudence that every man and woman has the right to have their day in court.”
”This verdict will undoubtedly hang like a dark cloud over the deputy president and, sadly, will damage South Africa’s standing in the international community.
”One is mindful that the shadow of corruption looms over public life in South Africa and that this verdict will serve to reinforce that perception.
”This will not help the deputy president perform the functions of his office, such as being chairperson of the Moral Regeneration Commission”.
Motion of no confidence
For its part, the Democratic Alliance proposed a motion of no confidence in Zuma.
DA chief whip Douglas Gibson said Zuma has violated Section 96(2) of the Constitution, which states that Cabinet members may not act in any way that is inconsistent with their office; or expose themselves to any situation involving the risk of a conflict between their official responsibilities and private interests; or use their position or any information entrusted to them to enrich themselves or improperly benefit any other person.
Gibson also charged that Zuma — who is in Zambia on a visit to his counterpart — misled Parliament when he failed to declare received benefits from Shaik.
Zuma, who has been deputy president since 1999, misled Parliament ”when he told the Parliamentary ethics committee in 2003 that payments he received via Schabir Shaik were interest-bearing loans and therefore not a benefit”.
Gibson said Zuma had also done so ”when he responded to a parliamentary question on March 13 2003 by stating that he did not meet with Thomson-CSF’s Alain Thethard”.
Gibson referred to an official statement in August 2003, in which Zuma stated: ”I have said before, and I repeat, that I have never attempted to solicit a bribe. I have never used my public office to advance the private business interest of any person.”
Zuma added: ”I have never discussed with Schabir, or anyone else for that matter, the issue of protecting Thomson/Thales [the French arms firm Thales] or any other company or individual from the investigation of the joint investigation team into the strategic defence procurement [arms deal].”
Gibson stated: ”I will therefore move that this House has no confidence in the deputy president, that he should resign forthwith. If he fails to do so, the president should dismiss him.”
Earlier, the government said in a statement that Zuma was ”not on trial”.
Judge ‘played politics’
Judge Squires played politics rather than justice, the Young Communist League of South Africa (YCL) said on Thursday.
Reacting to the guilty verdict, the party said Zuma should not resign.
”The judge found only Shaik guilty, and not Jacob Zuma,” said spokesperson Buti Manamela. ”Calls for his resignation smacks of opportunism and should not be heeded.”
The YCL steadfastly supports Zuma, and believes a judge in court cannot question his unifying character and commitment to the liberation movement, Manamela said.
”We are perplexed that the judge lengthily drew Zuma into the whole case, falling into the trap of the prosecution team and some people who are against the deputy president,” he said. ”The deputy president was not on trial.”
Guilt cannot be assumed
Although Zuma has been implicated in some of the charges of which Shaik was found guilty, it cannot be assumed he is guilty, the Congress of South African Trade Unions said on Thursday.
”He [Zuma] has not been on trial nor charged or convicted of any offence. So we cannot assume that anyone is guilty before he or she has been given a chance to defend him or herself,” Cosatu spokesperson Patrick Craven said.
He said Cosatu is waiting to see if any of the parties will appeal the conviction and will study the judgement in detail.
It will also hold consultations with its affiliations and perhaps issue a fuller statement on the matter after these meetings.
Many of Cosatu’s affiliates have openly backed Zuma to succeed President Thabo Mbeki as the next leader of South Africa. — Sapa, I-Net Bridge