Publication: Sunday Tribune Issued: Date: 2005-11-06 Reporter: Jeremy Gordin Reporter:

I'll See You in Court, Mbeki

 

Publication 

Sunday Tribune

Date

2005-11-06

Reporter

Jeremy Gordin

Web Link

www.sundaytribune.co.za

 

President Thabo Mbeki is expected to be called as a witness at the corruption trial of former deputy president Jacob Zuma in the high court in Durban next year.

It is understood that the president has been informed that he is a potential witness, as are a number of other high-ranking ministers, and that he will be asked to testify about a letter that was sent in January 2001 by Zuma, as leader of government business, to Gavin Woods, then head of parliament's select committee on public accounts (Scopa).

Zuma, it is understood, claims that, although he signed the letter, it was actually written by Mbeki, working in tandem with a cluster of ministers who were, at the time, tasked with "sorting out" the arms deal

It will be the first time a South African head of state has been called to court as a witness in a criminal trial

Murphy Morobe, head of communications in the presidency, said yesterday morning that he could make no comment about Mbeki being called to court.

In early 1998, former president Nelson Mandela testified in court after SA Rugby Football Union chief Louis Luyt claimed that Mandela had not applied his mind in allowing an investigation of Sarfu. This was, however, a civil matter. If Mbeki testifies, it will be the first time a South African head of state has been called to court as a witness in a criminal trial.

The strong possibility that Mbeki will be called emerged after Friday morning's delivery, to various legal teams, of the National Prosecuting Authority's provisional indictment against Zuma. The former deputy president is charged with two counts of corruption.

Bribe

Apart from the inclusion of similar corruption charges against two local subsidiaries of the French arms giant, Thales, the indictment is virtually a mirror of the one brought by the National Prosecuting Authority against Schabir Shaik, Zuma's former financial adviser, who was sentenced to 15 years for corruption and fraud.

One of the main charges against Zuma, as against Shaik, is that he was allegedly party to Shaik's arranging a bribe for Zuma from Thales. The bribe was allegedly to buy Zuma's protection against the government investigation at that time into the multi-billion-rand arms deal.

One of the pieces of crucial evidence against Shaik in this connection - and against Zuma, too, in Friday's indictment - was a letter allegedly written by Zuma, as leader of government business, to Woods, then head of parliament's watchdog panel on government finances.

The letter, written in January 2001, and containing the sentence, "Furthermore, we are convinced that there is no need for the Heath (Special Investigating) Unit to be involved in any investigation of the defence acquisition *1", informed Scopa that further investigation into the arms deal would clearly be unnecessary. *1

In his judgment in Shaik's trial, the letter was said by Judge Hilary Squires to be "hostile", crowing, and additional proof *2 that Zuma had been carrying out the task for which he had allegedly been bribed by Shaik and Thales: to protect the Shaik companies, which had won part of one of the tenders in the arms deal, from further scrutiny.

But it is claimed that although Zuma may have signed the letter, the author was, in fact, Mbeki, working with the cluster of ministers tasked with sorting out the fuss then surrounding the arms deal.

It is about this matter that Zuma's defence team plans to call the president to testify.

At the time of Shaik's trial, it was known by a number of people that Zuma claimed not to have composed the letter *3.

But it is understood that - unaware that Squires would place so much emphasis on it - Shaik's defence team opted not to pursue the issue.

Zuma's defence team is unlikely to make the same decision.

There is also a small - but highly significant - difference in the Zuma indictment, compared with the one brought against Shaik, which is also likely to be picked up and used by Zuma's defence.

Fax

The difference is in connection with the so-called encrypted fax sent by Alain Thetard, then local director of Thales, to his bosses in France. In the fax, Thetard is alleged to have set out the terms of Zuma's alleged bribe.

In the Zuma indictment, the fax is called a "draft encrypted fax", not "the encrypted fax" *4, as in the indictment against Shaik, and it is referred to as a fax that was "composed" but not necessarily sent *5.

The new phrasing *6 is thought to reflect the NPA's concern that, although Squires refused Shaik leave to appeal on the first count on which he was convicted ("a generally corrupt relationship"), he did allow Shaik leave to appeal on the third count, which dealt with the fax and the alleged bribe to Zuma.

With acknowledgements to Jeremy Gordin and the Sunday Tribune.


*1  Indeed not - depending on your point of view.

*2  And sent to Thomson-CSF, a signatory of the Corvette Umbrella Agreement, although the SA Government, mainly through its spokesman Alec Erwin, repeatedly stated to both the public and to SCOPA, that it had nothing to do with the secondary contracts, which was where any problems just might exist.

Another nice line of cross-examination for Mr Mbeki.

*3  Unless one annotates the letter as pp or "as instructed" as Rear-Admiral (Junior Grade) Okkie van der Skyf cutely used to do when he signed Chippy Shaik's letters.

p.p. - Latin «per pro» or «per procurationem».

p.p. is used when someone signs a letter by authority or proxy because another person is not available.

*4  There are three versions of the "encrypted fax", Alain Peter Thetard's handwritten version, the version typed by Susan Delique and faxed by her to Thomson-CSF head office in Paris after instruction and authorisation by Thetard to do so and the digital version typed on a Thomson-CSF personal computer and stored on a 1,44 Mbyte stiffy disk.

It's a pity the search and seizure raids conduction by the French and Mauritian police on behalf of the NPA never discovered the received versions. But this is hardly surprising because, at least in Paris, the NPA representatives had to wait in another room while gendarmes conducted the searches.

But Alain Peter Thetard has confirmed under oath that he authored the handwritten version.

*5  There was witness and forensic evidence that it was both transmitted and received in Paris.

*6  So, the straw exists, though wet and soggy - it must be clutched.