Publication: Sunday Times Issued: Date: 2004-10-24 Reporter: Xolisa Vapi Reporter: Paddy Harper

Shaik Happy to Charge Interest



Sunday Times

Date 2004-10-24


Xolisa Vapi, Paddy Harper

Web Link


Schabir Shaik’s claim that he gave Deputy President Jacob Zuma interest-free loans because of his “religious beliefs” returned to haunt him this week.*

It emerged in court that his former secretary and his brother’s trade union body did not benefit from his Islamic doctrine.

Shaik entered into an agreement with his former personal assistant Bianca Singh to bury an embarrassing incident of a “personal nature” which occurred in 2001.

In terms of the deal, Shaik paid her R40 000, through Kobifin, to leave quietly. However, it was agreed that Singh would repay the money, together with interest, at an overdraft rate charged by a bank ­ if she disclosed the nature of the dispute to a third party.

Shaik’s spokesman Dominic Ntsele told the Sunday Times that: “It was not a friendly agreement like the one with the Deputy President. It was a legal agreement.”

“His lawyer, Mr Anand Moodley, explained the reason for the inclusion of this clause as follows ... I knew too much about the relationship between Shaik and Jacob Zuma,” Singh said.

It also emerged that allegedly abusive behaviour was one of the reasons why Singh left. She said she later returned to work after being told that Shaik’s uncouth behaviour had changed and “he’s become holy”.

KPMG’s Johan van der Walt said Nkobi granted trade union consortium Workers’ College, headed by Shaik’s brother, Yunus Shaik, a R1-million loan “with interest payable in fixed terms”.

With acknowledgements to Xolisa Vapi, Paddy Harper and the Sunday Times.

* Shaik's formal plea explanation in this regard was as follows : "I reluctantly agreed that such moneys as I may expend on his behalf would be regarded as loans to him, on the clear understanding that no interest will be payable thereon due to my religious beliefs". A classic case of "If you don't like my principles, I've got others."

Both the Defendant and his Principal, Friend and Beneficiary have now been proven to have no compunction about lying to the Court and the latter to the People (via Parliament).