An+overall+corrupt+relationship,+Political+Bureau,+The+Star

The Star, Johannesburg, November 14, 2006 //Edition 4//
='An overall corrupt relationship'=


 * Staff Reporters**

Take your choice: "a generally corrupt relationship"; a "mutually beneficial symbiosis"; or "an overall corrupt relationship".

These are three descriptions used to define the relationship between Schabir Shaik and Jacob Zuma.

The first was given by Billy Downer SC in his preamble on the first day of Shaik's trial. The second, by trial judge Hilary Squires in his judgment last year.

And the third, and definitive conclusion, by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) yesterday.

The SCA, the second highest court in the land, gave its definition in a statement which said it regretted attributing the words "a generally corrupt relationship" to Judge Squires.

The appeal judges came under fire and had their credibility questioned because they made this mistake.

The furore erupted after Judge Squires wrote a letter to Business Day last week, in which he said he never mentioned the phrase in his judgment in the Durban High Court.

In a statement through their registrar, the appeal judges used some of Judge Squires' own findings to reach their conclusion about the relationship.

"The trial court found in the context of the corruption charges that the evidence established a 'mutually beneficial symbiosis' between Mr Shaik and Mr Zuma," the statement said.

"The trial court stated the following: 'It would be flying in the face of common sense and ordinary human nature to think that he (Shaik) did not realise the advantages to him of continuing to enjoy Zuma's goodwill to an even greater extent than before 1997; and even if nothing was ever said between them to establish the mutually beneficial symbiosis that the evidence shows existed, the circumstances of the commencement and the sustained continuation thereafter of these payments, can only have generated a sense of obligation in the recipient.

" 'If Zuma could not repay money, how else could he do so than by providing the help of his name and political office as and when it was asked, particularly in the field of government contracted work, which is what Shaik was hoping to benefit from.

" 'And Shaik must have foreseen and, by inference, did foresee that if he made these payments, Zuma would respond in that way. The conclusion that he realised this, even if only after he started the dependency of Zuma upon his contributions, seems to us to be irresistible.' "

The judges said these words were central to Judge Squires' conclusions.

They then went on to say the phrase "generally corrupt relationship" was consistent with the above passage from Squires' judgment.

"The trial court's view of the 'symbiosis' between Mr Zuma and Mr Shaik was confirmed by the SCA in various parts of its judgement, which ultimately conveyed that on the evidence in this case an overall corrupt relationship existed."

The SCA said it had made its own independent findings, which were based on an exhaustive review of the evidence and record of the trial court.

The judges stressed the case was against Shaik and not Zuma.

"The judgment necessarily had to deal with the relationship between Mr Shaik and Mr Zuma on the evidence presented in this case, and does not pre-empt any finding that may subsequently be made in respect of another accused in another trial."

Confident that they could still charge and prosecute Zuma, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) said yesterday that Judge Squires' denial had no legal implications.

"As far as the NPA is concerned, Judge Squires' comments have no legal implications for any former, current or future criminal matters whatsoever. The Supreme Court of Appeal's November 6 2006 pronouncement is the final authority on this matter," NPA spokesperson Makhosini Nkosi said.

"Any future NPA decision in this regard will be guided by the decision of the SCA," said Nkosi.

The Congress of SA Trade Unions yesterday said it apologised to Judge Squires about comments it had made about him and his judgment.

Spokesperson Patrick Craven said they had been based on "false media reports".

Cosatu further called on the media to "follow suit and apologise for the damage their misreporting of the judge's words has inflicted on the people involved, especially Jacob Zuma".

"The (weekend) reports gave a clear impression that Jacob Zuma had been tried and found guilty in absentia, on the basis of evidence led in another person's trial, and the public debate has centred around this perception," Craven said.

"This has seriously damaged his reputation and prejudiced his chances of a possible fair trial against the corruption charges levelled against him."


 * From: http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3539288**

763 words