The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

This morning's expose in the Mail & Guardian relating to the medical documents used to justify the granting of medical parole to Schabir Shaik can be added to the mountains of evidence that exists already that demonstrates that the granting of parole to Shaik was unlawful.

With this new information in the public domain, the Minister has yet another blatant reason to send the matter urgently to the parole review board. I will once more write to her today to urge her to do so. As we have said all along, if there is nothing to hide, then the Minister stands to lose nothing, and stands to gain everything, by sending Shaik's parole to the review board. If she is convinced that there was no wrongdoing or political interference, she can demonstrate that by sending the matter on review. Should she not do so now, that will say everything we need to know about the circumstances surrounding the granting of medical parole to Shaik.

The report this morning confirming a number of important points:

Firstly, the former nurse, who only graduated as a doctor in 2005, and who recommended medical parole for Shaik, did so despite apparently never having so much as examined him, and despite all of the examinations in her possession demonstrating that he was not even remotely in the final stages of a terminal condition.

That such a recommendation would have been acted upon by authorities, given Shaik's historical involvement in arms deal transactions with the President, makes any suggestion that Shaik was not the recipient of a political favour entirely implausible.

Secondly, the letter written in June 2008 by Shaik's private physician recommends: "...I feel that we will not achieve blood pressure control while he is incarcerated... I feel that Mr Shaik should be given correctional supervision as this may give us a chance to improve his blood pressure and prevent fatal complications."

That such a recommendation could be acted upon is nothing less than a farce, given that the legislated purpose of medical parole is to allow a terminally ill prisoner to die a conciliatory death - not to help them to recover (something that terminally ill patients, by definition, cannot do).

Thirdly, medical experts who have examined the medical documentation relating to the health of Shaik confirm unequivocally that none of Shaik's symptoms indicate he is in the final stages of a terminal illness.

In fact, medical experts now appear to be disputing even some of the more rudimentary claims made by Shaik's physicians about his condition. To quote again from the Mail & Guardian's report:

"The [medical consultant approached by the Mail & Guardian] said there did not appear to be any evidence of renal damage and Shaik's cardiac abnormalities were not severe... [I]f Shaik's retinal damage from his high blood pressure reached ‘stage four', as stated in some of the reports, one would expect ‘significant visual acuity problems, that would normally be inconsistent with Shaik driving a car - as he was seen doing a few months after his release..."

Section 79 of the Correctional Services Act sets out the provisions and conditions under which offenders may be released on medical parole. Shaik clearly does not comply with the criteria set out in law; as a result, his unlawful parole on medical grounds has undermined the credibility of the parole system as whole. The refusal of former Minister Balfour and incumbent Minister Mapisa-Nqakula to refer the matter to the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board also lends to the belief that the entire Shaik saga is just one massive cover-up for Zuma.