A trial on charges of corruption has become inevitable for Jacob Zuma, the deputy president of the ANC and powerful candidate for its leadership and the presidency of South Africa.

That’s according to Professor Tom Coetzee, criminal law expert and professor of Criminal Law at the University of North West, following the unanimous decision yesterday of 11 Constitutional Court judges to dismiss Schabir Shaik’s application to appeal against his conviction on charges of corruption and fraud and his 15-year jail sentence.

Appeal not in the interests of justice

The judges ruled that Shaik’s application to appeal did not have a reasonable chance of succeeding, and that it would therefore not be in the interests of justice to hear it.

The judges referred in particular to Schaik’s relationship with Zuma as regards the corruption and said it centred on the high court’s finding that Shaik and his companies had from October 1995 to September 2002 “made certain payments in a corrupt way to Zuma, with the intention of influencing him to use his name and political influence to benefit Shaik and his undertakings”.

Corruption clearly relates to Zuma payments

At one stage the judges did not mince words: “It’s clear that the charge of corruption relates to benefits that accrued to Zuma over a period of time, from before the amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act thereafter”.

Coetzee said the decision means that from a legal point of view a prima facie case against Zuma “clearly exists” and that it is a matter that Zuma ought to respond to in court, “regardless of the massive political impact” that this would have.

“Remember that the finding that Shaik paid money in a corrupt way to Zuma is now the finding of three courts: the high court, appeal court and Constitutional Court. I’m not saying that Zuma is guilty. What I am saying is that it’s inevitable that he’ll now have to be charged to put his side of the case.”

NPA welcomes ruling

Advocate Billy Downer of the National Prosecuting Authority and head of the state’s team against Shaik and Zuma said yesterday he welcomed the finding.

“Shaik and I have reached the end of a very long road. I’m thankful that it is passed.

“For us the verdict of the highest court in the land is an indication that we’re on the right road with our corruption inquiries — indirectly also as regards Zuma, of course.”

He said any further decisions on Zuma will now have to stand over to November, when the appeal court will deliver its verdict on three appeals brought by Zuma in connection with the investigation against him.

As regards Shaik’s sentence, the Constitutional Court judges said that there was no reason to interfere with the 15-year jail sentence.

Shaik had put it that his past as a disadvantaged person and his part in the struggle against apartheid had not been taken into account by the Appeal Court and that he should have received a lighter sentence.

But the Constitutional Court made short shrift of this. “The oppressive discrimination of the past cannot be used as an excuse for crime, and does not justify a reduction of an otherwise completely appropriate sentence,” they said.

Shaik had some success in yesterday’s appeal in that the Constitutional Court ordered that he should be allowed to appeal in court against the forfeiture of multi-million rand assets belonging to him and his companies.

The judges found that if the seizures were arbitrary they would be unconstitutional, and they want to hear full legal argument on the matter.

Michael Hulley, Zuma’s advocate said in response that yesterday’s findings were confined to “the limited question” of an application to appeal, by Shaik. “It’s definitely not our conclusion that it in any way addressed the merits of the matter and therefore conclusions that it would apply to Zuma would be premature.”

With acknowledgements to Philip de Bruin and The Witness.