Apologies and explanations flowed on Monday after Judge Hilary Squires’s denial that he found the relationship between former deputy president Jacob Zuma and businessman Schabir Shaik to be ”generally corrupt”.
In Bloemfontein, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) said it erred in ascribing the phrase to Squires, but added this did not feature in its judgement in Shaik’s criminal appeal.
The Congress of South African Trade Unions apologised to Squires for comments made about his judgement, saying they were based on ”false media reports which put these words into his mouth”.
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) said Squires’ denial had no legal implications.
Squires unleashed a storm when he denied — in a letter published in the Weekender — ever saying that the relationship between Shaik and Zuma had been ”generally corrupt”.
Squires convicted Shaik, former financial adviser to Zuma, on charges of corruption and fraud in the Durban High Court June last year.
Since then, the judge has been quoted in several media reports as having said in his judgement that a ”generally corrupt relationship” had existed between Zuma and Shaik.
Last week, the SCA dismissed Shaik’s appeal against his fraud and corruption convictions. A ruling was also made on an appeal related to the seizure of Shaik’s assets.
The SCA came under fire on Monday for having attributed the phrase ”generally corrupt relationship” to Squires, with Cosatu demanding the resignation of the appeal court judges.
Cosatu also insisted on Zuma’s re-instatement as deputy president, saying his dismissal from this post was justified on the basis of the remarks wrongly attributed to Squires.
A statement from the office of the SCA registrar said the court’s ”misattribution” of the phrase ”generally corrupt relationship” occurred only once in its judgement last week.
”The quote is to be found only in the introduction to the court’s subsidiary civil judgment on the forfeiture of Shaik’s assets,” read the statement.
”As in the case of all appeals, the SCA made its own independent findings. They are based on an exhaustive review of the evidence and the record of the trial court — this is apparent from the SCA’s extensive judgement.”
Cosatu said the media should also apologise to Squires ”for the damage their misreporting of the judge’s words has inflicted on the people involved, especially Jacob Zuma”.
Spokesperson Patrick Craven added: ”So too should all the
commentators and analysts who based their observations on these false reports.”
Craven said these reports had damaged Zuma’s reputation and prejudiced his chances of a possible fair trial against corruption charges.
”There is now an even stronger case for dropping all these charges, as Cosatu has been demanding, given that a fair trial is now out of the question.”
The judge’s comment also negated the arguments that were used to justify Zuma’s dismissal, said Craven.
”He should therefore be immediately reinstated to his position.”
The NPA indicated that its decision on whether or not to prosecute would not be swayed by Squires’ denial.
”As far as the NPA is concerned, Judge Squires’ comments have no legal implications for any former, current or future criminal matters whatsoever, said NPA spokesperson Makhosini Nkosi.
”The Supreme Court of Appeal’s November 6 2006 pronouncement is the final authority on this matter. Any future NPA decision in this regard will be guided by the decision of the SCA.” – Sapa