Schabir Shaik’s defence is hanging by a thread — albeit a substantial thread named Jacob Zuma. As Shaik began testifying in his defence in the fraud and corruption trial in Durban this week, it became increasingly clear that crucial aspects of his evidence rely on Deputy President Jacob Zuma for corroboration.
The question still remains whether Shaik’s defence is going to be legal or political. The litmus test will be whether or not he chooses to call Zuma.
Giving evidence is sure to be embarrassing and damaging for Zuma, who has already suffered a blow to his popularity according to a recent poll — a development ascribed to the negative publicity coming from the trial.
Zuma faces the risk of cross-examination about his relationship with Shaik, as well as other benefactors who have bankrolled his family. These include businessmen Jurgen Kogl, Vivian Reddy and businesswoman Nora Fakude-Nkuna.
He also faces the risk of contradicting Shaik, who this week expounded on his interactions and close friendship with Zuma in rather careless detail, including getting Zuma’s age wrong.
If Shaik decides not to call Zuma, it will be clear he has put all his faith in the latter eventually winning the presidency and somehow expunging Shaik’s legal problems, whether via presidential decree or some other stratagem.
Indeed this week it looked sometimes as if Shaik was going through the motions. He appeared distracted and often failed to pick up cues proffered by his counsel, advocate Francois van Zyl. It appeared there was some difference between Shaik and his legal team over strategy.
While some of this clearly relates to the pressure Shaik is under, outside the court he appeared more confident. Tellingly, he and his brother Mo voiced the prediction that Zuma’s accession to power was a certainty.
Mo Shaik also confidently predicted the demise of the Scorpions: “It’s a done deal,” he told the Mail & Guardian.
But inside the courtroom Shaik’s credibility was being stretched as his counsel sought to pit his client’s word against the weight of documentary evidence and testimony under oath put up by the state.
If he gives evidence, Zuma will have to:
In general the defence seems to be trying to show that Shaik had no intention to bribe Zuma, despite bank-rolling his shortfall in income. To that end Shaik revealed that he was still supporting Zuma and that he was not particularly worried whether Zuma was able to pay him back.
More difficult for the defence is to explain Shaik’s concession that he readily used Zuma’s name and assistance in his business contacts, but that there was nothing wrong with this.
In essence, Shaik has argued that his relationship with Zuma was an extension of his relationship with the African National Congress — and that their mutual support was nothing more than a matter of patriotism.
Shaik conceded that he drew some of his inspiration from the Malaysian model, where the interests of the majority party and certain empowerment companies are intertwined.
As such, a particular view of black economic empowerment is as much on trial in Durban as Shaik