Publication: Sunday Times Issued: Date: 2005-11-13 Reporter: Paddy Harper

Shaik’s Payments Continued

 

Publication 

Sunday Times

Date

2005-11-13

Reporter

 Paddy Harper

Web Link

www.sundaytimes.co.za

 

Sacked deputy president was still taking money in August, indictment says

The new payments are also the subject of alternative charges under a new law

Zuma’s assistance was ‘informal and did not form part of the ... bidding process’

Payments to axed Deputy President Jacob Zuma by Durban businessman Schabir Shaik allegedly continued right up until August 18 this year, despite the corruption case against Shaik and his conviction in June.

The payments, the magnitude of which has not yet been made public, will form an important part of the state’s corruption case against Zuma, which is set down for trial in the Durban High Court from July 31 next year.

The provisional indictment formally presented to Zuma in Durban’s Regional Court yesterday argues that these payments — along with a total of R1.2-million paid to him by Shaik from October 25 1995 to September 30 2002 — were part of a series of acts of corruption carried out by Shaik and Zuma.

Zuma, along with Thint Holdings (Southern Africa) (Pty) Ltd and Thint (Pty) Ltd, face four counts of corruption over the period from October 1995 to August 18 this year. The two are subsidiaries of the French arms dealer Thint (formerly Thomson CSF), which secured a lucrative section of South Africa’s arms procurement package.

Part of the indictment relates directly to the two corruption counts of which Shaik was convicted.

One is the collective payment of R1.2-million to Zuma for intervening in business deals that Shaik was battling to land. The second: the attempt to secure a R1-million bribe for Zuma from Thint for protecting the company and promoting its bid in the arms deal.

However, the state’s case does not end there: the 38-page indictment and 44-page summary of substantial facts argue that the subsequent payments are a continuation of the same pattern of corruption of which Shaik was convicted.

In recent weeks much has been said about a “mirror image” indictment, which would restrict the state to arguing only the same case it successfully brought against Shaik.

The new payments, argues the state, are part of this pattern of corruption. They are also the subject of a series of alternative charges under the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, which only came into effect on April 27 last year.

Shaik escaped prosecution under that law because it could not be applied retrospectively.

The inclusion of the more recent payments to Zuma makes it possible, the state argues, for him to face alternative charges under the new law, which makes it a crime for an employed person to receive an “unauthorised” benefit.

The indictment argues that “payments for the benefit of Zuma have continued in the period after September 30 2002 to August 18 2005, in an aggregate amount as yet undetermined by the state”.

“The ... payments to Zuma make no legitimate business sense, in that neither Shaik, the Nkobi group, nor the other relevant entities could afford the payments, being at all times in a cash-starved position relying on, and at times exceeding, bank overdrafts and thus effectively borrowing money from banks at the prevailing interest rates to make the said payments interest-free,” the indictment reads.

“On the other hand, the group’s survival depended upon obtaining profitable new business ... with the assistance of Zuma.”

Zuma, the indictment says, was “in circumstances where he would not have been able to obtain such funding commercially”.

The indictment also claims that services Shaik provided to Zuma, ranging from deferred payments on the money he gave him to helping him draft his declaration of interests to Parliament and the Cabinet, were all illegal “benefits”.

The Thint subsidiaries, the indictment says, were party to both “general corruption” and “specific corruption”. The “general corruption” related to securing Zuma’s general protection and patronage. The “specific corruption” relates to the elaborate plan, developed along with Shaik, to pay Zuma an “annual bribe” of R500 000 for the same services.

Zuma’s assistance, the indictment says, was “informal and it did not form part of the official bidding process”. The indictment also argues that Zuma neglected, violated or ignored his duties both in government and the ANC by taking bribes, a departure from the Shaik case where the focus was entirely on his government role.

As a result, it claims, he violated the constitutions of the country and the party by providing patronage in return for financial gain.

•The provisional indictment is expected to be broadened to include charges of tax evasion and defrauding Parliament by failing to declare the payments.

With acknowledgements to Paddy Harper and Sunday Times.


What about uttering ?
Uttering is a legal term referring to the passing of fraudulent currency, checks, or other documents that are known to be forgeries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttering

Or is this reserved for Comrade Julie?