The trial court of Durban businessman Schabir Shaik had not properly considered the powers and duties of former deputy president Jacob Zuma covering the period Shaik stood trial, his defence contends.
In papers filed at the Supreme Court of Appeal, Shaik’s defence team contends the powers and duties, decision-making or otherwise, which Zuma had as KwaZulu-Natal MEC and later as the country’s deputy president were not properly considered.
This was in relation to the corruption charge involving a ”generally corrupt relationship” with Zuma.
In June 2005, the Durban High court sentenced Shaik to 15 years in prison on each of two corruption counts and another three years for fraud.
The sentences were to run concurrently.
Later, high court judge Hilary Squires granted Shaik leave to challenge one of the two corruption convictions and one of fraud to the appeal court, albeit on limited grounds.
Squires refused Shaik permission to appeal against his conviction on the first corruption charge which involves the corrupt relationship with Zuma and payments exceeding R1,2-million made to the politician.
After Shaik approached the appeal court, the Bloemfontein court ruled that leave to appeal in terms of count one must first be argued and if the court considers it successful then Shaik can argue on the merits of the appeal itself.
Central to this appeal is whether the series of payments to Zuma were made with corrupt intent or were made innocently as between friends with no intention to obtain the benefits of Zuma’s support and influence.
According to Shaik the high court erred with regard to the finding it made and from which it drew the conclusion that Shaik gave financial assistance to Zuma with the intention to influence him. – Sapa