Publication: Cape Times Issued: Date: 2007-10-04 Reporter: Sapa

How Shaik's Fate Will Affect Pikoli and Zuma

 

Publication 

Cape Times
Date

2007-10-04
Reporter Sapa

Web Link

 www.capetimes.co.za

 

It was the trial that changed South Africa's political history - and its final chapter was due to be decided on Tuesday.

Nearly three years after Jacob Zuma's former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, went on trial in the Durban High Court, the Constitutional Court was due to rule on his last-ditch bid to appeal against his fraud and corruption convictions and 15-year prison sentence.

More than two years ago, Judge Hilary Squires convicted Shaik of soliciting a R500 000 bribe from French arms company Thint in exchange for Zuma's protection against an arms deal inquiry.

Within days, President Thabo Mbeki sacked his deputy, a step that sparked the bitter feud still boiling today.

Zuma was charged in June 2005, and while the case was struck off the roll in September 2006, the charges have made it very difficult for Zuma to assume leadership of the ANC.

In fact, he alleges that they were deliberately "engineered" to thwart his political ambitions.

Now, with the battle for the ANC leadership only weeks away, the court's ruling will have a major impact on whether and how the National Prosecuting Authority, still reeling after the surprise suspension of its head Vusi Pikoli, will proceed against Zuma.

While Pikoli claimed to have taken the decision to charge Zuma after Shaik's conviction, Zuma suggested that the NPA boss had done so at Mbeki's behest.

Pikoli vehemently denied these claims, and the state has subsequently asked the Pretoria High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal to "punish" Zuma for his "scandalous" conspiracy claims.

Within hours of Pikoli's suspension last week, the Zuma camp were already questioning whether Pikoli's reluctance to charge Zuma before finalising several court cases related to the state's investigation against him was behind it.

In his leave-to-appeal application in May this year, Shaik also took issue with the state for failing to charge Zuma with him, claiming this infringed his right to a fair trial.

Admitting that Shaik had lied repeatedly during his evidence, his counsel, Martin Brassey SC, contended that Zuma could have shed some light on this dishonesty if the two men had shared the dock *1.

"Can you imagine a man of such stature testifying from the witness box in an open and frank manner, which would have dispelled the unfortunate impression my client might have made, brought on because he is bombastic," he said.

Brassey also said the state had unfairly used Shaik as a "dry run" in preparation for its aborted Zuma prosecution.

"If anyone believes that my client was the ultimate fish that was sought to be landed, they obviously haven't been reading the newspapers," he said. *2 *3

The state dismissed these claims, arguing that its decision not to prosecute Zuma had been "perfectly legitimate".

Speaking to The Star on Monday, Shaik's brother Mo expressed surprise at the news that the court would rule on Tuesday, saying no one had informed his family of this.

"But we knew this was coming and we are cautiously optimistic," he said. "I will take a flight to Durban to meet with my family tonight so that we can discuss possible scenarios and options. Ultimately, we are fighting for my brother's release."

Mo Shaik said Schabir was fervently observing Ramadan with prayers and fasting.

"Hopefully his prayers will be answered tomorrow," he said.

While reluctant to provide any details on his brother's health - which controversially saw him transferred to a KwaZulu-Natal hospital earlier this year - Mo Shaik confirmed that Schabir was still in the hospital section of Westville Prison.

When asked how he was preparing for Tuesday, Mo Shaik replied: "You tell me? How do you prepare for something like this?"

With acknowledgements to Sapa and Cape Times.


*1       If only the two men had shared the dock, with Pierre Moynot, representing Thomson-CSF.

Billy Downer's long road would only have been a 7 year road and not a 10 or 11 year road.


*2      "If he believes that his client's beneficiary was the ultimate fish that was sought to be landed, he obviously hasn't been reading the newspapers," I said.


*3      "If anyone believes that his client's beneficiary was the ultimate fish that was sought to be landed, they obviously haven't been reading the newspapers," I said.