Schabir Shaik did not ”cold-bloodedly” set out to enter a corrupt relationship with former deputy president Jacob Zuma, his advocate told the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein on Monday.
”There is a world of difference when people stake out and stalk people in [public] office with a cold-blooded intent,” submitted Jeremy Gauntlett SC.
Shaik and Zuma had a strong, long-existing relationship where support had existed prior to any alleged corrupt activities, he argued.
He said the Durban High Court had not followed the correct approach in interpreting their relationship.
Shaik — Zuma’s former financial adviser — was sentenced in June 2005 to 15 years’ imprisonment on each of two corruption counts, with an additional three years for fraud. The sentences were to run concurrently.
It was doubtful that statutory corruption had been proved on count one, Gauntlett contended.
This charge referred to the ”generally corrupt” relationship Shaik had with Zuma.
The Durban High Court did not grant Shaik leave to appeal the charge. However, he has been allowed to make oral argument directly to the SCA in support of his application for leave to appeal.
”This is not your usual corruption charge,” Gauntlett told the court. It was not the average ”grubby” corruption case courts usually had to work with.
In the state’s submission, prosecutor Billy Downer voiced scepticism at Shaik’s relationship with Zuma, submitted that it was ”suspect” and ”calculated to gain benefit”.
Shaik stepped in and negotiated with Zuma’s creditors to honour his debt when he wanted to resign from politics in 1996 because of financial difficulties.
”Every action by Mr Zuma afterwards is attributable to payments by Shaik,” Downer told the court.
This was ”classic” corruption whereby people were put on retainers, he contended.
Judge Mahomed Navsa asked Gauntlett whether he thought Zuma would have done what he had done (used his influence to the benefit of Shaik and his companies) if there was no benefit or reward.
”If he had done what he had done would you have considered it proper?” he asked.
”We don’t say its proper, but we don’t say it’s at the heart of the inquiry … it’s not what the offence requires,” Gauntlett replied.
Arguing on Shaik’s fraud conviction for irregular write-offs of certain loan accounts, Francois van Zyl told the court it was possible Shaik had not known of the write-offs.
However Navsa countered: ”It doesn’t take a genius to read a balance sheet and see the one day you owe this and the next day something else.”
Van Zyl maintained that Shaik called only the meeting where the decision was taken to write off the account and left it up to his auditors to sort out.
The defence’s case is that the trial court erred in relying on only the evidence of one accountants, a Mr Paruk, responsible for the write-offs.
Arguing the second corruption charge — involving the admissibility of an encrypted fax — Downer told the court the bribe involved was ”just a continuation of a scheme of bribery”.
The fax apparently details a meeting at which Shaik allegedly negotiated a R500 000 a year bribe for Zuma with Alain Thetard of then French arms company Thomson-CSF, in return for Zuma’s protection in a probe into South Africa’s multibillion-rand arms deal.
The defence claims its case was prejudiced by the admission of the fax, as Thetard had offered to give evidence, but was never called to the stand for cross-examination.
”We say it was grossly unfair to allow the fax,” Gauntlett submitted.
Downer and a full bench went on to argue whether it was possible Zuma and Shaik did not commit the offence if Shaik merely used Zuma to obtain money for himself without Zuma’s knowledge.
This was a point was raised on the last day of Shaik’s high court trial.
The appeal continues on Tuesday. – Sapa