The state had not filed all its papers at the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Bloemfontein on Tuesday in connection with Durban businessman Schabir Shaik’s asset-forfeiture appeal.
According to records already filed at the court the state has until August 11 to file its head of argument on the matter.
The SCA earlier granted permission for Shaik’s two appeal applications to the Bloemfontein court — in relation to his corruption and fraud convictions and those related to the asset forfeiture — to be consolidated.
On Tuesday, television news groups received the go-ahead from the SCA to capture court footage during the appeal hearing.
”The president of the Supreme Court of Appeal, Judge CT Howie decided that media coverage will be allowed in court during the matter,” a court official said.
Certain restrictions will be imposed.
The SCA has scheduled five days for the Shaik appeal hearing, which starts on August 21.
Shaik evaded prison in July 2005 when he successfully secured (in part) an appeal to the Bloemfontein court against his corruption and fraud convictions in the Durban High Court.
At the end of the trial, Judge Hilary Squires had 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.
On appeal, Squires granted Shaik leave to challenge one of two corruption convictions and one of fraud to the SCA, albeit on limited grounds.
Squires refused Shaik permission to appeal against his conviction on the first corruption charge, which involved a ”generally corrupt relationship” with former deputy president Jacob Zuma and payments exceeding R1,2-million made to him.
Delivering the appeal judgment, Squires repeated his earlier finding at trial that payments to Zuma could not have been for any reason other to secure his influence and goodwill in Shaik’s business ventures.
After Shaik approached the SCA to broaden the limited grounds of the appeal, the SCA ruled that leave to appeal on count one (first corruption charge) must first be argued. If the court considers it successful, Shaik could argue on the merit of the appeal itself.
Shaik was also expected to submit that the high court erred in convicting him and four of his companies on the main count of fraud on the basis of the evidence of a single witness.
On count three, the second corruption charge, Shaik was allowed by the high court to ask the SCA whether the trial court had been correct in admitting an encrypted fax as evidence.
The fax detailed a meeting at which Shaik allegedly negotiated a R500 000-a-year bribe for Zuma. The bribe, from the French arms company Thomson CSF, was to be in return for Zuma’s protection in a probe into South Africa’s multibillion-rand arms deal.
The trial court ruled that the fax was admissible as an executive statement between conspirators.
The asset-forfeiture appeal relates to the corruption and fraud trial and stems from January this year when the Durban High Court ordered Shaik to pay more than R31-million of his assets to the state, said to be proceeds of crime. — Sapa