Accusation that he simply followed NPA's draft charge sheet

The forensic auditor who gave expert evidence for the state in the trial of Schabir Shaik has been accused of "painting by the numbers provided by the National Prosecuting Authority".

"I deny that," KPMG director Johan van der Walt told the Durban High Court yesterday.

In a dramatic battle of minds, Van der Walt stuck to his report, and advocate Francois van Zyl SC, for Shaik, stuck to his questions.

Yesterday was Van der Walt's first day of cross-examination after spending more than a week explaining the various paper trails in the finances of Shaik, Deputy President Jacob Zuma and Shaik's Nkobi group of companies to the court.

Shaik has pleaded not guilty to two charges of corruption and one of fraud. The charges relate to what the state says was a general corrupt relationship between Zuma and Shaik, and to an alleged attempt by Shaik to solicit a R1-million bribe on behalf of Zuma from French arms company Thint.

Van der Walt was asked about a year ago to assist with the case, even though the NPA had already drawn up a draft charge sheet.

"This was an extraordinary case. There was an accountant of the Directorate of Special Operations, who lacked the capacity (to complete the investigation). I was never instructed to or felt obliged to come to the same conclusions."

To support his allegation that Van der Walt had tailored his report to the wishes of the prosecution, Van Zyl then questioned him extensively about the development of Zuma's traditional homestead at Nkandla in KwaZulu Natal.

The state claims in the indictment there was a close link between the first instalment of the French bribe, which was for R250 000, the payment for the development, and a charitable trust called Development Africa, founded by Durban businessman Vivien Reddy.

In his report, Van der Walt said the money was paid to fund the Nkandla development.

Van der Walt also said they had traced R2-million paid to Zuma by Nelson Mandela.

Van Zyl said Shaik would tell the court that he did not know about the Nkandla development until a late stage, when he tried in vain to stop it as the tender price was too high.

In his plea explanation, Shaik said he had R900 000 of the Mandela money paid into one of his company's accounts. But when he found out that it was destined for payments to traditional leaders in KwaZulu Natal, to be distributed through the Development Africa Trust, he had made arrangements for it to be repaid.

Van Zyl also said that another witness, John Michael Samuels, would say the R2-million was paid to Zuma from Mandela's own money Van der Walt agreed that there were three payments - two of R125 000 each and one for R250 000 - made by Shaik or by Kobitech to Development Africa.

In his report, he said this was money used to fund Zuma's Nkandla development. Van Zyl then showed Van der Walt invoices for money paid by Development Africa to construction companies that had worked on the residences for the Zulu king and queen. "If you saw these, would you still have told the court that the R250 000 was for Nkandla?" he asked.

Van der Walt replied: "I would have added an alternative conclusion: that the money from Mauritius (from Thint) was either for Nkandla or for the traditional leaders to make good the R1-million due (to Development Africa) by Zuma."

But Van Zyl wasn't backing down. He said the draft charge sheet, given to Van der Walt when he began his investigation, had linked Nkandla and a scheme to get bribe money from Thint.

With acknowledgements to Estelle Ellis and The Star.