Explanation of What and Who was Raided and Why [The Star, 2005-08-19]

Publication: The Star Issued: Date: 2005-08-19 Reporter: Alameen Templeton Reporter: Reporter:

Explanation of What and Who was Raided and Why

Publication	The Star
Date	2005-08-19
Reporter	Alameen Templeton
Web link	www.thestar.co.za

1. Where
Jacob Zuma's two homes - in Forest Town, Johannesburg, and Nkandla, KwaZulu Natal - were targeted as the Scorpions swarmed over the properties.

Why
They were looking for faxes, records, gifts and any correspondence that could help them in their investigation against Zuma. The state is pressing charges against him after Judge Hilary Squires found he had a "generally corrupt relationship" with his former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik.

Judge Squires found Zuma had been present at a March 2000 meeting with Shaik and Alain Thetard, a representative of Thint, a subsidiary of French arms manufacturer Thales/Thomson-CSF, where it was agreed that Zuma would receive R500 000 a year in exchange for his protecting Thales' interests in pursuing a lucrative bid in the corvette deal.

What it means
Zuma's Nkandla home became a major headache for Shaik as he tried to accommodate the then deputy president's wishes to build an enormous, sprawling complex for his family. As building costs soared, Shaik took to dipping into R2-million lying in Zuma's bank account from the Nelson Mandela Children's Fund - half of which was supposed to be paid into the Jacob Zuma Education Trust Fund - so that he could pay the builder.

Shaik still owes Development Africa about R500 000. Development Africa was a trust fund set up to tackle welfare issues not strictly on the budget of the ANC; the money was also intended to be used for traditional leaders.

2. Where
Shaik's Durban home and offices of his company, Nkobi Holdings.

Why
The Scorpions would have been looking for faxes, records, gifts and correspondence that could link Shaik to the state's case against Zuma. The state will be looking at issues beyond the arms deal and at other instances where Zuma allegedly wielded his influence illegally.

Shaik denied during his trial that Zuma was present at a meeting in March 2000 at Nkobi Holdings where it was agreed to pay him R500 000 in return for his "protection" of Thint's arms bid. The Scorpions are looking for evidence that could bolster their contentions beyond any doubt that Zuma sat in on the meeting, was in accord with the agreement reached and took action to protect the foreign company.

What it means
Shaik muscled a 10% stake in ADS out of Thales/Thomson-CSF by coming in as their "empowerment" partner as they made a bid for the contract to design the computer software that would control the guns of the warships that South Africa has bought from Germany. Although the state was able to use a lot of business records from Nkobi against Shaik, it made it more difficult to do so against Zuma.

Because the records were from Shaik's own business, they did not need to be verbally verified as being genuine.

In the case against Zuma, far more documentation will have to be independently verified as genuine by eyewitnesses. This means the state has to cast its net as wide as possible to get as much hard evidence as it can.

The state will also be looking at other instances of assistance that Judge Squires found the former deputy president gave to Nkobi. These relate to the credit-card-style driving licence tender (which included Thomson-CSF), to the Point Road development tender at Durban Harbour and an abortive attempt by a British academic to train black people in hotel and catering skills.

3. Where
Thint's offices in Pretoria were also raided.

Why
The Scorpions were again looking for as much evidence as they can lay their hands on in their case against Zuma. It will not be enough simply to rely on evidence brought in the case against Shaik; more, original evidence will have to be brought to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the corruption charges against Shaik can also stick to Zuma.

What it means
Thint was originally one of the parties joined as an accused to the charge sheet against Shaik. Charges against the company were dropped only on the eve of Shaik's trial and only after the company had unsuccessfully attempted to have the charges against it removed in the Pietermaritzburg High Court. Excluding any possible future agreements not to prosecute the company in exchange for its co-operation in the investigation, Thint could also find itself in the dock.

The Scorpions' kid-glove approach to the company that allegedly paid the bribes has raised eyebrows in legal circles. Given the possible inadequacy of Nkobi documentation relating to Zuma, the prosecutors are probably trying to find evidence from Thint that will back up existing documents.

4. Where
The offices of Zuma's attorney, Michael Hulley.

Why
The Scorpions will be looking for any documentation or records that will link Zuma to the alleged bribes paid to him. They will be looking for business records relating to the period when the bids for the arms contracts were being made.

What it means
The Scorpions will have to be mindful of client-attorney privilege and will only be able to search for and seize records that do not relate to any work Hulley may have done in respect of the case against Zuma. But any work that may relate to Zuma's links to the arms deal, ADS and Thint will be of interest.

5. Where
The offices of Julie Mahomed, Zuma's personal attorney.

Why
Mahomed allegedly drew up the original "revolving loan" agreement that Shaik claimed could show that all "bribes" Zuma received were meant to be paid back. No copy of the agreement has been produced in court.

What it means
Again, private documentation relating to Zuma will not need to be backed up by oral evidence, so it would appear the Scorpions are trying to cover all bases. There may be more documentation in Mahomed's offices that the prosecutors would like to lay their hands on.

6. Where
The home of KZN Economic Affairs MEC Zweli Mkhize.

Why *1
Mkhize was treasurer-general of the ANC in KZN during most of the period in question (October 1995 to September 2002) when Shaik dipped into funds *1 from the Mandela Children's Fund and used them for Zuma's benefit.

What it means *2
Mkhize's evidence will be vital in determining how the Mandela money was to be used.

With acknowledgements to Alameen Templeton and The Star.

*1 Tripe - the reason is that Floryn Investments was a special purpose vehicle with 50% ownership by Nkobi Holdings and 50% by the ANC and especially to channel funds from Nkobi to the ANC. Schabir Shaik and Dr Z.L. Mkhize even had joint signing power on Floryn Investments's bank account.

This is indeed bumiputera at its rampant best.

*2 More Accused, more charges?