Mixed+Signals,+Judge+Hilary+Squires,+letter,+Weekender

Business Day Weekender, Page 2, transcribed by hand (not on BD site) 2006-11-11
=Mixed Signals=


 * HG Squires**

Dear Sir

You article in the Business Day edition of Wednesday, 27th September concerning the appeal case of Schabir Shaik and Others vs. The State, then under debate in the Supreme Court of Appeal attributed to me a finding that Shaik and Jacob Zuma shared “a generally corrupt relationship”. One assumes you are referring to the original High Court judgement in which Schabir Shaik was found guilty of contravening S.1(1) of the Corruption Act of 1992, since I have never had occasion to say anything about the matter at any other time.

If you have never read the judgement delivered in that case, may I suggest that you do so. I can find no such mention of my having made any such comment. If you have already read the judgement, and in it this phrase – “a generally corrupt relationship” occurs I would be grateful if you would advise me of the page and line number in which the statement appears. The only question in that trial was Shaik’s own state of mind when he made the admitted payments to, or on behalf of, Jacob Zuma, namely, whether by doing so, he intended to influence the recipient in the exercise of his official duties. Jacob Zuma’s state of mind when he received these benefits was never an issue, nor was any finding made about it. There was no need for any conclusion regarding the state of affairs between them, nor was one made.

To the best of my recollection the phrase in question was used by the prosecutor in one of his pictorial presentations as part of his argument at the end of the trial. It was put into quotation marks by some sub-editor in a report covering the State’s case, and has been mindlessly parroted ever since as a finding by the Court by many of the journalists who have felt the need to write about the ongoing saga.

Unless you can indicate to the contrary, please note that I did not make the statement and it should therefore not be attributed to me. I have long since advised your Editor of this but he has clearly not disseminated the correction to his staff.

Yours faithfully,


 * HG Squires (Judge of High Court, NPD)**


 * The above can also be found at: http://friendsofjz.co.za.16.m6.net/showarticle.asp?id=230**

Schabir Shaik vs the State, Supreme Court of Appeal, 6 November 2006
“Between 1996 and 2002 Shaik and Mr Jacob Zuma engaged in what the trial court appropriately called ‘a generally corrupt relationship’ which involved frequent payments by Shaik to or on behalf of Zuma and a reciprocation by Zuma in the form of the bringing to bear of political influence on behalf of Shaik’s business interests when requested to do so.”

468 words