Linked to corruption and misleading parliament

Schabir Shaik's conviction on two counts of corruption and one of fraud has squarely shifted the spotlight onto Deputy President Jacob Zuma.

Judge Hilary Squires found in his judgment that Zuma had been in a corrupt relationship with Shaik, his financial adviser.

Zuma, Thabo Mbeki's likely successor as president of South Africa, was in the dock in the Durban High Court in all but name.

The Directorate of Public Prosecutions, which decided not to put Zuma on the original charge sheet fearing an unsuccessful prosecution, has said it will study the judgment before announcing any further steps.

If Zuma is not charged, it is likely he could become a major liability for the ANC and the government. Many say he is not fit to be in the presidency and should quit.

A decision to proceed against Zuma would be politically explosive. But, based on the court's findings, Zuma could face the following charges:

Count 1: Corruption

The allegation should be that during the period October 1995 to September 2002, Zuma unlawfully and corruptly accepted benefits not legally due to him, with the understanding that he would use the powers conferred on him by law or exercise his duties in such a way to advance the interest of Shaik and his companies.

During this period, Zuma held two high positions in office. The first was from May 1994, when he was the KwaZulu Natal MEC for economic affairs and tourism.

The constitution expressly precluded him, as an MEC, from undertaking any other paid work or using his position to enrich himself.

From June 1999, he was the deputy president of the country.

The code of conduct regarding financial interests obliges him to maintain the highest standards of propriety, and not to put himself in a position that conflicts with his responsibilities.

He may not take any "improper benefit, profit or advantage".

The constitution also precludes him from undertaking any other paid work; exposing himself to potential clashes of interest; or using his position to enrich himself.

Yet, as Judge Hilary Squires found, between October 1 1995 and September 2002 Zuma received about R1,3-million from Shaik and his companies.

During this time there were a number of instances where "brother Zuma" stepped in to help Shaik.

These included:

Punting Shaik's company as the preferred black economic empowerment partner for the multimillion-rand Point development in Durban.
Offering his signature of support for a proposed ecotourism school with the implied condition that Shaik be the one to help.
Resolving the impasse when French arms company Thomson excluded Shaik from benefiting from the controversial multibillion-rand arms deal.

Judge Squires said Shaik was aware that the benefits paid to Zuma were improper.

What are the chances that Zuma did not know? He should at least be brought before court to explain.

The judge also found there was a "mutually beneficial symbiosis" between the two men.

He also found that even if there was never an express agreement that the men were entering into a corrupt relationship, a pattern of behaviour developed where Shaik would ask and Zuma would help - smacking of the crime of corruption.

Count 2: Corruption

The allegations should be that in March 2000 Zuma agreed, through the use of a code, to protect and support Thomson in return for the payment of R500 000 per year.

Evidence shows that Zuma had written a letter to the former chairperson of parliament's standing committee on public accounts, Gavin Woods, excluding the Heath Special Investigating Unit (SIU) from investigating the arms deal. At the time, the SIU was the most potent investigator in the country as it had the power to cancel contracts.

Firstly, Zuma would not be able to say that he thought it was all about a donation for his education trust - that defence failed quite miserably when Shaik tried it.

Secondly, the notorious encrypted fax, which detailed the R500 000-a-year payment that Zuma would receive from Thomson, has been accepted into evidence on solid legal grounds and found to be a true reflection of the meeting.

Count 3: Fraud

The allegation should be that Zuma had lied to parliament - and therefore the South African people - by pretending that his financial agreement with Shaik was above board.

Judge Squires had found that the "revolving-credit agreement" allegedly lodged somewhere in parliament - nobody seems quite sure where - "is not what it purports to be" and cannot be used as proof that the payments by Shaik were loans.

Deputy president to study verdict

Embattled Deputy President Jacob Zuma has reminded the nation that he has not been tried in any court of law.

"There was an investigation, and that investigation said there was no case. So I have not been in court," he told SABC television news yesterday while on an official visit to Zambia.

Zuma, who did not once mention the name of his convicted former adviser, Schabir Shaik, would only say: "In so far as there is a conclusion of the case, I will certainly be studying the judgment, and I think that's what I can say."

With acknowledgements to Estelle Ellis and The Star.