Storm+in+a+teacup+says+Downer,+Wendy+da+Costa,+The+Star

The Star, Johannesburg, November 13, 2006 //Edition 2//
=Controversy over phrase a storm in a teacup, says Downer=


 * //'Generally corrupt relationship' not my words - Judge Squires//**


 * Wendy Jasson da Costa**

The controversy surrounding the statement that ANC deputy president Jacob Zuma and fraud and corruption convict Schabir Shaik had a "generally corrupt relationship" was a storm in a teacup, according to prosecutor Billy Downer.

He was responding to queries after the judge in the Shaik trial, Hilary Squires, wrote a letter to a weekend newspaper denying he had ever used that phrase in his judgment.

Judge Squires' letter came after the Supreme Court of Appeal judgment against Shaik last week, in which it also attributed this phrase to him.

Shaik began his 15-year sentence last week.

Yesterday, Downer, the prosecutor in the Shaik case, said it was the media that had first used those words, not Judge Squires, but it made no legal difference, "nothing, zero".

He said the issue over who had coined the phrase was irrelevant because "ultimately" that was the finding of the court. "It's an argument without any substance. It makes no difference because that's in effect what he (Judge Squires) found," Downer said.

University of KwaZulu Natal law professor Robin Palmer said that whether Judge Squires had used it in his judgment would not impact on the case's merit, and that the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal, which quoted the phrase in its judgment and attributed it to Judge Squires, could not be set aside as erroneous.

He said that although Downer was right in calling it a legal "storm in a teacup", the "ambiguous interpretation" of the phrase could have major political ramifications. Palmer added that it was unusual for a judge to write a letter to the media.

He said one of the major effects of the issue was that it highlighted how important it was for the media to understand judgments and legal findings, and that issues should be contextualised and carefully and meticulously explained.

Palmer said that if Zuma was recharged, his lawyers could argue that the issue cast doubt on his prospect of receiving a fair trial.

Political analyst Adam Habib said that even if Judge Squires had not said Zuma and Shaik had a generally corrupt relationship, "the judgment does speak of inappropriate behaviour".

He said it was not a card Zuma supporters should overplay, as it could force Judge Squires back into the public domain to explain what he really meant - and that would mean more bad news for Zuma.

Yesterday, an aide to Zuma said they would not be commenting, but if they decided to do so later, they would take legal advice on the matter.

Last night, Zuma's lawyer Mike Hulley said Judge Squires had tried to correct an incorrect media perception and had thereby inadvertently exposed some other perceptions.

He said it brought into sharp focus whether Zuma would have a fair trial.

Judge Squires said last night his letter had been addressed to a journalist who had incorrectly written that he had ruled that there had been a "generally corrupt relationship" between Zuma and Shaik.

He said that earlier this year he had also written a letter to the newspaper's editor. Judge Squires said that in both instances, the letters were not meant for publication.


 * From: http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3533898**

557 words