Schabir Shaik has admitted he bribed ANC president Jacob Zuma "with the intention to corrupt him".
But, in a final legal bid to stop the state from confiscating R33-million from him, Shaik's lawyers on Tuesday insisted the state never proved that these bribes were the only reason Zuma used his political clout to assist his financial adviser.
Shaik's legal team wants the Constitutional Court to stop the Asset Forfeiture Unit from permanently confiscating the convicted fraudster's assets, which the state claims Shaik obtained after Zuma intervened for him with French arms company Thomson/ Thint.
Asked whether there was any evidence that "there had been a bribe" prior to Zuma's intervention with Thomson, Shaik's counsel Martin Brassey SC told the court: "Oh decidedly".
Continues Below ↓
| 'We don't know what was operating in Mr Zuma's mind' |
But, pointing out that Zuma had not been charged or called to testify in Shaik's trial, Brassey stressed there was nothing to show that Zuma's decision was not motivated by friendship or a desire to assist his then financial adviser.
"The question we have to ask ourselves is whether the bribes were the only reason for Mr Zuma's intervention... we don't know what was operating in Mr Zuma's mind," Brassey said.
The state previously showed that Zuma met with Thomson after the company, acting on information that then president Nelson Mandela and then deputy president Thabo Mbeki did not like Shaik, seemingly started backing out of its relationship with the businessman.
After meeting Zuma on July 2 1998, Thomson recommitted itself to a relationship with Shaik and his companies - resulting in Shaik obtaining a 20 percent interest in African Defence Systems (ADS) as part of the Thomson consortium, which was awarded a multimillion-rand contract to provide the combat suites for the navy's new corvettes.
It is these shares and their dividends that the state seized, arguing they were the proceeds of crime.
| 'Mr Zuma was in his camp because Mr Shaik was paying him to be in his camp' |
Brassey on Tuesday tried to undermine any insinuation that Zuma was a knowing party to the corruption and instead suggested Zuma acted after hearing of Shaik's problems with Thomson.
Shaik maintains that he would have obtained the ADS shares without Zuma's help and previously told Judge Hilary Squires, who first convicted him, that he was a "fighter" who would have sued to get his rightful part of ADS.
Judge Squires was unconvinced, finding that between October 1995 and September 2002 Shaik or one of his companies paid Zuma R1 340 078 for his influence in Shaik's business enterprises.
Wim Trengove SC, for the state, poured scorn on Shaik's claims.
"Why did Thomson go into business with Shaik? Was it because of his arms business experience, his wealth or his charm?
"The answer is obvious: they did it because Mr Zuma was in Mr Shaik's camp, and Mr Zuma was in his camp because Mr Shaik was paying him to be in his camp.
"Shaik could wave him (Zuma) as his prize to anyone who got into bed with him..." Trengove said.
Describing Brassey's argument as "conceptually flawed", he said Zuma's intervention on Shaik's behalf to Thomson was not an isolated incident but had been proved to be "part of a pattern of conduct".
Trengove also questioned why, if Zuma had intervened on Shaik's behalf out of friendship, "he would have paid so highly for something he could have had for free".
"In the end Mr Shaik bribed Mr Zuma for his protection, and intervention and political influence...
"It's a matter of historical fact that the bribe got him (Shaik) the benefit (of the shares)," he said.
According to Trengove, evidence in the Shaik trial had shown "how proudly, how brashly and how loudly Mr Shaik used the Zuma carrot and the Zuma stick" to achieve his own ends.
The court repeatedly questioned Trengove about Brassey's argument that seizing both Shaik's ADS shares and their dividends was a disproportionately harsh punishment, considering that Shaik had already been sentenced to 15 years in jail and been fined R1-million.
But, describing economically motivated crime as the "scourge of our time", Trengove denied suggestions by Justice Kate O'Regan that this might amount to excessive punishment.
Speaking to the media outside court, Shaik's brothers maintained that forfeiting R33-million to the state could hamper their efforts to have him released from prison.
Judgment has been reserved.
- This article was originally published on page 1 of The Star on February 27, 2008
|
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Digg
Delicious
Newsvine
Facebook
muti
Twitter
