FREE DAILY EMAIL

G overnment reaction to Shaik verdict

The South African government yesterday noted the judgement in the Durban trial of Shabir Shaik, and welcomed the fact that the matter has reached a critical stage of finality, it said in a statement.

“It testifies to the maturity of our democracy that the trial ran its course without any interference from any quarter - be it government in general or anyone in authority who may have featured in the evidence led.

“Government respects the findings of the court, noting at the same time that our legal system affords those convicted the possibility of appealing to higher courts.”

While recognising that there may be a number of implications, for government, arising out of the judgement, this was a matter that would require considered reflection by relevant legal and political authorities, the statement said.

“With regard to the Deputy President in particular, he has himself indicated that he was studying the judgement before making any detailed comment.

“As he has said before, and as the Judge asserted during the hearing, the Deputy President was not on trial.

The government urged all South Africans, including the media, to respect these processes and maintain the dignity with which this matter has been dealt with thus far.

Government also noted the assertions in the judgement on matters pertaining to the Strategic Defence Procurement Process.

These assertions were consistent with the main finding of the Joint Investigation Team of the Auditor-General, the Public Protector and the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions on the integrity of primary contracting, which was the core responsibility of government.

To the extent that the trial dealt with an outstanding issue pertaining to secondary contracting, it was taking forward matters that the team itself had found required further investigation.

The government was convinced that the case itself, including the lengthy judgement delivered - the latter with public access through live media broadcasts - had not only added an important dimension to civic education in the operation of our judicial system.

“It has also contributed in clarifying many legal and moral issues pertaining to the vexed subject of corruption and abuse of office within both the public and private sectors. In this regard and as a consequence thereof, our democracy has emerged the richer.”

ANC response

The African National Congress also noted the verdict handed down yesterday in the Durban High Court in the fraud and corruption trial of Schabir Shaik, saying that the ANC, “had maintained throughout the matter that the due process of law must be allowed to proceed without let or hindrance, and that the basic principles of justice - including the right to presumption of innocence - should be observed”. The ANC therefore appreciated the role of the court in affirming the rule of law as an integral part of our democratic constitutional order. “This is a further signal of the integrity of the country's legal system, and an affirmation of the maturity of our democracy. “The ANC will comment further, if necessary, after studying the judgement,” the party said.

DA says Zuma guilty

The Democratic Alliance yesterday issued a joint stement in response to the verdict:

Judge Hilary Squires’ verdict in Durban today effectively means that Deputy President Jacob Zuma – while not on trial himself – has been found guilty in absentia.

Zuma’s position is now fundamentally compromised and he has become an embarrassment, not only to President Mbeki, but also to the ANC and the country as a whole.

This is exactly why the Democratic Alliance called upon him (as early as August 2003) either to resign or vacate his office until his name was cleared. The fact that Zuma chose instead to not only remain in office but also to remain silent on the charges against him means that he has now done irreparable harm to the Presidency.

While a cloud of suspicion has hovered over him, since Schaik was charged in August 2003 Zuma chose disingenuously to complain he had been deprived of his day in court to clear his name. However, he has had numerous opportunities to state his case on the record.

Not only was he formally invited by the Hefer commission to give evidence – which would have indirectly allowed him the opportunity to state his case – but he could also have appeared as a witness in the Shaik trial to corroborate his position.

His claims of being tried in the media thus ring hollow.

In light of the verdict it is now clear that Zuma and Schaik had a generally corrupt relationship and that Schaik solicited a bribe on Zuma’s behalf.

In a charge of this nature it should not be forgotten that it takes ‘two to tango’.

It is clear that Zuma accepted payments from Schaik in return for allowing him to use his political office to help Shaik secure business contracts. Such a relationship clearly implicates both parties in the relationship – the giver and the receiver.

This vindicates the view we expressed right from the outset that charges against Zuma and Schaik are inextricably linked.

The original charge sheet was written in such a way it was evident that the original intention of Advocate Bulelani Ngcuka, the head of the National Director of Public Prosecutions at the time was to charge both Schaik and Zuma.

A fact that was confirmed by the NPA.

Serious questions must now be asked as to whether there was in fact political pressure which forced Ngcuka to remove Zuma’s name from the charge sheet as the DA warned in August 2003. In light of the overwhelming evidence linking Zuma to the guilty verdict of Schaik him, the NPA should reconsider the decision not to charge Zuma with charges of corruption.

Apart from the legal decision itself, it should also be considered that Zuma has been proven to have lied on a number of different occasions. These include the following:

(a) Zuma lied to the nation:

In an official statement in August 2003, Zuma stated:

• “I have said before, and I repeat, that:

• I have never attempted to solicit a bribe.

• I have never used my public office to advance the private business interest of any person.

• I have never discussed with Schabir or anyone else for that matter, the issue of protecting Thomson/Thales or any other company or individual from the investigation of the Joint Investigation Team into the Strategic Defence Procurement.”

(b) Zuma lied to parliament:

• When he failed to declare received benefits from Schabir Shaik as a benefit in the Registrar of Members’ Interests.

• When he told the Parliamentary Ethics Committee in 2003 that payments he received via Schabir Shaik were interest bearing loans and therefore not a benefit.

• When he, in response to a DA parliamentary question on the 13th of March 2003 (Question 110), stated that he did not meet with Thomson-CSF’s Alain Thethard.

• Zuma must also now explain why he wrote a hostile letter in his capacity, “Leader of Government Business on January 19, 2001 to then SCOPA chair Gavin Woods stating, “… there is no need for the Heath Unit to be involved in the investigation of the defence acquisition…”.

It is now obvious that Zuma had a material interest in ensuring that the arms deal investigation did not go ahead or was not as vigorous as originally intended.

In the light of the lies told by the Deputy President, as well as in the context of the commitment given by President Mbeki last week, “… to ensure that the functions of the executive structures of government are not undermined by corruption.. ”, we officially call on Deputy President Zuma to resign now or for President Mbeki to remove him office.

Unless such action is taken the government’s commitment to corruption as well as the country’s international reputation will be dealt a fatal blow.

The leader of the opposition, MP Tony Leon will officially write to Mbeki requesting him to remove Zuma from office, should he fail to resign immediately.

In addition, it is now clear that parliament itself must reopen the investigation into the Arms Deal, further aspects of which have now been proven to be demonstrably corrupt.

SPONSORED BY

Advanced