The Judge President of KwaZulu-Natal, Vuka Tshabalala, has spoken out strongly against those who claim that Judge Hilary Squires's judgment in the Schabir Shaik trial was politically motivated.
On Friday, former deputy president Jacob Zuma himself questioned Squires's impartiality, pointing to the fact that he had served as a judge and cabinet minister in the former Rhodesia. Tshabalala, who recommended that Squires handle the politically sensitive trial, however, has no misgivings in this regard.
"He (Squires) is highly regarded by all judges, both black and white, in this division," he said.
The judge president was responding to a report on Friday, which quoted Zuma as having told the Mail & Guardian newspaper, "In 1963, I was sentenced to ten years in prison by Justice Steyn. It was a political trial.
"I listened to Judge Squires and there was nothing different to what I heard 42 years ago in terms of the political judgment."
Tshabalala refuted such allegations. He pointed to the fact that originally nobody had complained about the appointment of Squires to hear the case. "Whatever people are saying now, comes as an aftermath to the trial.
While people were questioning the outcome, they had overlooked the fact that forensic evidence - in the form of testimony by auditors - had been brought.
"These auditors traced where the money came from and where it went to. Such evidence cannot be termed political."
Squires had looked at the facts as presented to him and formulated a judgment on the basis of that evidence. Tshabalala asked, "Can people start saying a judgment is political just because it goes against what they want?
"The only test is whether it is fair and well considered in terms of the law."