Publication: Cape Argus
Reporter: Jeremy Gordin
'Chippy' Faces Plagiarism Claim
the eve of Schabir Shaik's Constitutional Court appeal, a furore has broken out
about the mechanical engineering doctorate awarded to his brother, Shamin
"Chippy" Shaik, in 2003 by the University of KwaZulu-Natal.
his brother, Yunis, Chippy has been accused of plagiarising parts of his thesis
with the connivance of Professor Victor Verijenko, his supervisor.
said yesterday that Chippy had been accused of reproducing word-for-word a
paper, "Refined Theory of Laminated Anisotropic Shells for the Solution of
Thermal Stress Problems" in his dissertation.
"But the point," said
Yunis, "is that he was one of the four authors who wrote the original paper. How
can you plagiarise yourself?"
Yunis said Chippy had used the paper with
the knowledge of his co-authors, one of whom was Verijenko; that the paper was
noted in the thesis bibliography; and that it was internationally accepted
practice for students to incorporate in their theses work of which they were
co-authors with their advisers.
"In other words, this is just another
smear - whenever Schabir is due to go to court, another pops up in the media,"
In an e-mail from Australia, where he is on sabbatical,
Verijenko said work done by Chippy had been of a very high standard and that he
could not understand where questions about the dissertation had come
Verijenko said in the e-mail that he knew Dr Richard Young of Cape
Town had for some reason tried to "review" Chippy's thesis and he suspected this
was the source of the trouble.
He said he knew the relationship between
Chippy and Young was "acrimonious" and that Young was in any case not qualified
to judge Chippy's thesis.
Young, of the C2I2 company, has threatened
legal action in the past, claiming his company was done out of arms deal
contracts by Schabir Shaik's Nkobi Holdings.
With acknowledgement to Jeremy Gordin
and Cape Argus.
This article is abject nonsense.
It is purely the
spin put forward by the affected parties, without the slightest effort to get
commentary from the other side, including the University or the parties who
conducted the investigation.
The content is simply regurgitated by a
journalist known for his sympathetic views, such regurgitation clearly being
with the permission of the authors.
That this journalist wrote such
drivel is entirely understandable, but that his editor allowed it to be
published is to the eternal shame of what is meant to be an esteemed
This editor needs to explain.
But ironically the
statement (from whence part of the drivel is derived) issued for and on behalf
of the candidate by his appointed attorney is actually self-incriminating
because it confirms just one critical flaw in the thesis as alleged, i.e. that
it is not the own unaided work of the candidate as attested in the signed
Declaration on Page ii of the thesis.
more........................., lots more............