Publication: The Star
Issued:
Date: 2007-10-02
Reporter: Karyn Maughan
Reporter:
| Publication |
The Star
|
| Date |
2007-10-02
|
|
Reporter
|
Karyn Maughan
|
|
Web Link
|
www.thestar.co.za
|
16 judges, 3 trials, 1 verdict for Shaik
Schabir Shaik's last hopes lay in tatters at 10am today as the man who
secured a bribe for Jacob Zuma learnt he would be in prison for many years to
come.
His last chance of clearing his name, or having his 15-year sentence reduced,
vanished when 10 judges of the Constitutional Court handed down a unanimous
verdict, rejecting all his appeals against his fraud and corruption convictions
and sentences handed down by Judge Hilary Squires more than two years ago.
Guilty of an ongoing corruption of Zuma over many years - 15 years jail.
Guilty of fraud - 3 years.
Guilty of soliciting a bribe from an arms company in exchange for Zuma's
protection - 15 years.
Squires' judgment and damning verdict about the corrupt relationship between
Shaik and Zuma led to President Thabo Mbeki sacking his deputy - and to much of
the present furore in the ANC's succession debate.
Squires' verdict was endorsed by five judges of the Supreme Court of Appeal in
November last year.
And today the 10 Constitutional Court judges dismissed Shaik's last appeal, with
the judgment read out by the deputy chief justice, Dikgang Moseneke.
"An appeal against conviction and sentence does not bear any reasonable prospect
of success," the judgment said.
Thus, South Africa's highest court has confirmed that Shaik engaged in the
"ongoing corruption" of the former state deputy president and current ANC
deputy.
Upon hearing the court's verdict, Shaik's brother Mo Shaik broke down.
But for Scorpions lead advocate Billy Downer, who led the team that brought down
Shaik, the court's refusal to let Shaik appeal against his convictions and
sentences has shown "that we are on the right track *1".
Downer is also leading the investigation into Zuma.
He said he felt "gratified and vindicated" by the court's complete rejection of
Shaik's claims of "gross prosecutorial misconduct".
"This is the end of a long road - some seven years," Downer said.
The court was also unconvinced by Shaik's argument that he had received an
"unfair trial" because Zuma and French arms company Thint, from whom he was
found to have secured the R500 000 bribe in exchange for Zuma's protection from
a potentially damaging arms deal enquiry, were not tried with him.
Shaik's argument that he should have received a lesser sentence because of the
discrimination he had suffered under apartheid was also rebuffed by the court.
"Whereas it is clear that poverty, a lack of education, or an unhappy childhood,
for example, or years of humiliation and ill-treatment could be taken into
account as relevant personal circumstances of an offender, one must never lose
sight of the fact that millions of people who suffered severely under apartheid
have chosen to lead honest lives and to avoid crime, often against many odds,"
the judges said.
"Any message by sentencing courts that the sad and brutal past of our country is
a general excuse or mitigating factor for crime would degrade the noble efforts
of millions of previously and presently deprived people to live law-abiding
lives under difficult circumstances."
Shaik attempted to explain his failure to raise his "fair trial" complaint in
either the KwaZulu Natal High Court or the Supreme Court of Appeal by arguing
that he had not had the information available to him to do so.
This information, he contended, had only come to light later, during the state's
thwarted bid to prosecute Zuma *2 and
Thint for corruption and fraud *3.
The Constitutional Court rejected Shaik's attempt to hand in the entire court
record of the state's case against Zuma and Thint as evidence, saying it found
this to be "irrelevant and controvertible".
"We do not agree that Shaik and his companies did not have the information
necessary to enable them to raise their constitutional complaints in the High
Court and in the Supreme Court of Appeal.
"They were aware that Mr Zuma, Thint and (Thint representative Alain) Thethard
were not going to be tried with them.
"Mr Zuma had declined their invitation to testify on their behalf and Mr
Thethard was overseas.
"The available information was therefore available to them to foresee any
potential prejudice there might have been to their trial and they should have
been in a position to take appropriate action."
In his leave to appeal application, Shaik argued that if Zuma had been charged
with him, the former deputy president might have been able to provide
exonerating evidence that could have explained the "very unique and wholly
innocent relationship" that existed between the two men.
But the Constitutional Court found that this argument was "highly speculative".
The judges pointed out that Zuma could well, for instance, have asked for a
separation of trial or exercised his right to silence.
Shaik did, however, score a small legal victory.
The court found that he had a "reasonable prospect of success" in appealing
against the confiscation of several of his multimillion rand assets - which were
seized from him on the grounds that they were the "proceeds of crime".
The court ruled that Shaik's claim that his crimes were not the direct or only
cause of his wealth raised a potential constitutional
point.
The prosecutor in the case, Anton Steynberg, said afterwards that Shaik's only
option now was to petition the president.
"Obviously we are very pleased with the result in the criminal part of the
proceedings."With acknowledgements to Karyn
Maughan
and The Star.
*1 It must be absolutely impossible
now for the NPA not to charge :
*2
primary beneficiary; and
*3
primary benefactor.