Court hears of Shaik-Zuma bond

BLOEMFONTEIN – The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) heard yesterday that the Durban High Court had not followed the correct approach in interpreting the relationship between Schabir Shaik and former deputy president Jacob Zuma.

Jeremy Gauntlett, for Shaik, said they doubted that statutory corruption had been proved. “This is not your usual corruption charge,” Gauntlett said of Shaik’s corruption charge.This charge referred to the “generally corrupt” relationship Shaik had with Zuma.Zuma’s former financial adviser, Shaik was sentenced in June 2005 to 15 years’ imprisonment on each of two corruption counts, with an additional three years for fraud.The sentences were to run concurrently.”It was not one payment handed to someone in a brown envelope behind a stadium, but a number of payments of a number of kinds.”Gauntlett submitted that Shaik and Zuma had a strong, long, existing and prior relationship where support had been given in the past.He argued that evidence given by witnesses in the high court trial pointed to a consistent relationship and contact between Shaik and Zuma.He said there had been no indication of a change in the relationship which would have rendered it corrupt.”Is it at least reasonably, possibly true that without these [monetary] interventions…Mr Zuma would have done for Mr Shaik and his Nkobi companies exactly what he did?” Gauntlett also led arguments on whether Shaik had influenced Zuma in his official capacity, or whether he was just helping a friend.The high court found that the assistance was given with the intent that Zuma should use his general influence to favour the appellants (Shaik and his companies).The appeal continues.Nampa-Sapa”This is not your usual corruption charge,” Gauntlett said of Shaik’s corruption charge.This charge referred to the “generally corrupt” relationship Shaik had with Zuma.Zuma’s former financial adviser, Shaik was sentenced in June 2005 to 15 years’ imprisonment on each of two corruption counts, with an additional three years for fraud.The sentences were to run concurrently.”It was not one payment handed to someone in a brown envelope behind a stadium, but a number of payments of a number of kinds.”Gauntlett submitted that Shaik and Zuma had a strong, long, existing and prior relationship where support had been given in the past.He argued that evidence given by witnesses in the high court trial pointed to a consistent relationship and contact between Shaik and Zuma.He said there had been no indication of a change in the relationship which would have rendered it corrupt.”Is it at least reasonably, possibly true that without these [monetary] interventions…Mr Zuma would have done for Mr Shaik and his Nkobi companies exactly what he did?” Gauntlett also led arguments on whether Shaik had influenced Zuma in his official capacity, or whether he was just helping a friend.The high court found that the assistance was given with the intent that Zuma should use his general influence to favour the appellants (Shaik and his companies).The appeal continues.Nampa-Sapa