And Yengeni goes on a hunger strike, but is set to have his prison privileges reinstated after parole probe falls flat

Schabir Shaik suffered a mild stroke while in prison last Saturday. And Tony Yengeni, 52, another high-profile prisoner, went on a hunger strike in Malmesbury Prison, apparently in protest against his privileges being removed following his alleged parole violations in mid-November.

Shaik, 49, was transferred from Qalakabusha Prison in Empangeni to St Augustine's, a private hospital in Durban, after his stroke.

Initially Shaik was treated for hypertension (high blood pressure) at Qalakabusha - to which he had been transferred from Westville Prison on November 9, the day he started serving his 15-year sentence for corruption and fraud.

That weekend Yengeni was allowed home for the first time. In terms of a parole board decision, Yengeni was to be allowed home every weekend until his release, provided he did not violate any of the weekend parole conditions.

However, Yengeni appeared to have violated his parole on two counts: the former ANC chief whip was seen and photographed drinking beer at a party at his Milnerton, Cape Town, home; and he allegedly arrived back at prison more than an hour after his check-in deadline.

A source in the prisons department said the investigation into Yengeni's alleged parole violations had been completed last Monday and that the investigators had been unable to find conclusive proof that he had broken his parole conditions - for example, it had been too late to test whether Yengeni had drunk alcohol while at home. Therefore, no action would be taken against him and Yengeni's privileges would be reinstated in due course.

Regarding her husband's hunger strike, Lumka Yengeni said yesterday: "About that matter, I am not going to comment."

Yesterday, Sipho Manqele, area commissioner for the prisons department, confirmed that Yengeni had been on a hunger strike last weekend, but he said he had "no idea" what it had been about.

Yengeni was awarded parole weekends early in his sentence because he was sentenced in terms of section 276 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for conversion of sentences into community corrections after serving only a sixth of the sentence as an inmate.

He also benefited from a 20-month amnesty announced by President Thabo Mbeki last year for all prisoners serving time for non-violent crimes. It was expected that his four-year sentence would be converted to correctional supervision on January 13.

In 2003, Yengeni was sentenced to four years in jail after being convicted of fraud related to his acceptance of a discount on a luxury vehicle from one of the bidders in the multibillion-rand arms deal. In August, he lost an appeal against his conviction and sentence.

Meanwhile, in keeping with their decision not to discuss their brother in the media, Shaik's brothers, Mo and Yunis, would not comment on Shaik's stroke, except to confirm that it had happened and that it had been "mild". So it is not known to what extent, if any, Schabir has been affected.

"I will only say this," said Mo Shaik, "that, given what happened to Schabir last Saturday, media suggestions that he went to hospital as [a] scam, because prison life was not agreeing with him or some such rubbish, are, to put it mildly, inappropriate."

Meanwhile Reeves Parsee, Shaik's attorney, confirmed that a constitutional court challenge would be filed on behalf of Shaik.

"Obviously we are late," said Parsee - Shaik's appeal was overturned on November 6 and he had 14 days from that date to file papers with the constitutional court - "but it is a complex and difficult matter, and we shall have to ask for a special 'condonation' regarding our tardiness".

Parsee declined to discuss the basis of the constitutional court action. Three other senior counsel, not connected with the Shaik matter but familiar with the legal issues, said they believed that the constitutional court application would probably be based on Shaik having arguably not received a fair trial.

One of the senior counsel, who didn't want to be identified, said: "Â…you do have a situation in which a man was convicted, at least on one charge, on the basis of having entered into a conspiracy to commit corruption with two other parties. And yet neither of the co-conspirators was brought to court. Why, for example, wasn't Jacob Zuma called as a witness?

"Moreover, when this issue was raised in the supreme court of appeal - when one of the judges asked Billy Downer SC, the lead prosecutor, why Zuma had not given evidence - Downer replied that the judge's question was tantamount to 'preaching to the converted'.

"Downer said, in other words, that if he had been allowed to do so, he would have either called Zuma as a witness - or certainly have charged him, and even have charged Thint, the French arms dealer, as well. But, as we know, Bulelani Ngcuka, the then director of public prosecutions, announced earlier that he had decided not to prosecute Zuma and also had cut a deal with Thint.

"Given that there would appear to have been some 'manipulation' related to the prosecution of Shaik… I guess this could be the basis of an 'unfair trial' application."

With acknowledgements to Jeremy Gordin, Angela Quintal and Sunday Independent.