Sundaytimes - Online
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Jacob Zuma is back in the spotlight as the National Prosecuting Authority decides on its next move after the dismissal of Schabir Shaik's appeal.
The Supreme Court of Appeal's (SCA) unanimous dismissal of Durban businessman Schabir Shaik's appeal against his fraud and corruption convictions has placed the spotlight firmly on former deputy president Jacob Zuma.
Opposition parties were also unanimous in expecting the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to reopen its case against Zuma, which was struck off the roll in the Durban High Court two months ago.
But, the Congress of SA Trade Unions (Cosatu) and the ANC Youth League warned against premature conclusions.
Institute for Democracy in SA (Idasa) executive director Paul Graham, said the SCA's decision had given the Scorpions "more than enough motivation" to reinstate corruption charges against Zuma.
"The Supreme Court of Appeal has confirmed Schabir Shaik made payment to Zuma in order to influence him... also confirmed that Shaik sought a bribe from [arms manufacture] Thomson CSF on behalf of Mr Zuma." "The judgment has made it possible for the Scorpions to now re-open their corruption case against Zuma," Graham said.
Shaik did not attend court in Bloemfontein on Monday and was in Cape Town, where his senior counsel is based.
On hearing the news, he reportedly said: "I can't believe it. Boom, boom, boom, one, two, three, they didn't uphold anything. All the lawyers were wrong about what was going to happen."
SCA President Craig Howie in a summary of the judgment, said no grounds were found to change Shaik's convictions and sentences, which meant an effective prison sentence of 15 years. He now has between 48 and 72 hours to report to correctional services.
Shaik failed to attend a scheduled news conference broadcast live later on Monday, sending his brothers Mo and Yunis instead.
Mo said the brothers did not expect the judgment to go the way it had, because Schabir still maintained that his relationship with Zuma was "founded on altruism".
"Schabir does not believe that he has done anything wrong in his relationship with Jacob Zuma". He said Zuma had been in debt and Schabir had acted out of "compassion."
Asked about the possibility of an appeal to the Constitutional Court, Yunis said the brothers were still studying the judgment and were not yet able to draw any conclusion as to whether there were grounds to appeal to the Constitutional Court.
Yunis said the Appeal Court judgment should be respected. "We should defer and pay deference to the judgment," he said.
The judgment could have a "major impact" in shaping the country's future, with the possibility of Zuma standing trial and the question of who would succeed President Thabo Mbeki.
While the Shaik family had been critical of the NPA in the past, it now seemed the NPA had stopped playing "media stars" and was executing its constitutional mandate to the best of its ability, Yunis said.
In her reaction, the Democratic Alliance's Sheila Camerer said the ruling "surely" had serious implications for Zuma's political future. "It is hard to see how the NPA can fail to pursue their case against him now," she said.
Koos van der Merwe of the Inkatha Freedom Party agreed the development raised large challenges for Zuma. "It will now be interesting to see which path the NPA decides to take from here," Van der Merwe said.
United Democratic Movement leader Bantu Holomisa said the ruling had put the Scorpions and the NPA on higher moral ground to formulate charges against Zuma. The time had arrived for both the Scorpions and Zuma to show cause why Zuma should not get his day in court.
The African Christian Democratic Party's Steve Swart said at the very least, the public required an explanation from Zuma as to the "generally corrupt relationship" between himself and Shaik.
Frik van Heerden of the Freedom Front Plus said his party had total confidence in the legal system to take a possible Zuma court case further, but an automatic conviction was not at all a foregone conclusion.
However, Cosatu believed Shaik's failed appeal did not mean there was a stronger case against Zuma or that he should be charged for corruption.
"Zuma and Shaik are not the same person and each has a right to be tried completely independently," said Cosatu spokesman Patrick Craven.
"One person cannot be convicted in absentia on the basis of evidence against someone else. If there was any evidence against Jacob Zuma, then he should have been charged and tried separately."
Similar comments came from the ANC Youth League, which pointed out that no court of law had found Zuma guilty of any wrongdoing. Thus, no inference should be drawn from Shaik's failed appeal.
"We must at all times observe the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic, and desist a temptation to find any person guilty outside of the credible due processes of the law, as this undermines and violates important elements of the rule of law," said youth league spokesman Zizi Kodwa. Sapa