The Star - Online
Tuesday, November 07, 2006 Edition 1
Gill Gifford and Karyn Maughan
The notorious encrypted fax - admitted in court as proof that Schabir Shaik solicited a bribe for Jacob Zuma - is a piece of paper that sunk Shaik, and may have damning implications for Zuma.
The fax, described as the spectre of corruption related to the arms deal, featured prominently in the Supreme Court of Appeal judgment yesterday that has sent the former deputy president's financial adviser on his way to jail.
In the 92-page, full-bench judgment, it was stated that in respect of the Durban High Court corruption conviction of Shaik, the "evidential foundation which is the handwritten draft and actual encrypted fax" was undisputably a draft message written by Alain Thetard, the representative of French arms manufacturing firm Thomson (now known as Thint).
"The court accepted that the plain and obvious meaning of the fax is that a proposed arrangement discussed at two previous meetings by Shaik and Thetard on September 30 1999 in Durban and by Thetard and Jean-Paul Perrier (formerly of Thint) on November 10 1999 in Paris, respectively, was confirmed at a third meeting in Durban on March 11 2000 involving Shaik, Thetard and Zuma, and an agreement was reached on that proposal," the judgment stated.
Trial Judge Hilary Squires found that the fax "spoke for itself" - setting out the arrangements and terms of a R500 000 bribe for Zuma - and that is was admissible.
The fax was one of the major pieces of evidence used by Judge Squires to convict Shaik before sentencing him to 15 years' jail.
The charge of corruption, related to soliciting a R500 000 bribe from Thomson for Zuma, was mainly based on the encrypted fax. The state submitted that Zuma, in return for the money, would protect the company in relation to the inquiry into the arms deal and to promote its interests.
Shaik's answer to the fax was that he had no idea why Thetard composed the document, and he claimed not to have been aware of it until he saw it reproduced in the media. He explained that the R500 000 payment was a donation to the Jacob Zuma Education Trust.
The court upheld that the trust anticipated no such donation from Thint, and Shaik's explanation was rejected.
Yesterday's ruling in favour of the admissibility of the fax may have dire consequences for Zuma because it implicates him in corrupt dealings.