2005-11-08,+Zuma+Showing+Shortly,+Star,+Business+Day

= **'Hostile' ministerial letter will be a key element in Zuma trial** =

Correspondence on arms deal may have accommodated the agendas of both the president and his former deputy

November 7, 2005 By Angela Quintal

A letter in 2001 to the standing committee on public accounts regarding the arms deal may have accommodated the agendas of both the president and the then deputy president himself.

This is according to the man to whom the infamous letter was addressed, Gavin Woods, the former chairperson of the committee (known as Scopa).

He later resigned as chairperson of Scopa, citing unhappiness with the way the government interfered with the work of his committee on the arms deal.

Woods, now an MP for the National Democratic Convention, was reacting to weekend news reports that President Thabo Mbeki might be called as a defence witness in Zuma's corruption trial.

Independent Newspapers reported that the president had been informed that he and high-profile cabinet ministers would be asked to testify about a letter sent in January 2001 by Zuma, in his capacity as leader of government business in the National Assembly, to Woods.

At the time of the fallout in parliament about the letter, speculation was rife that the Minister in the Presidency, Essop Pahad, or the president's legal adviser, Mojanku Gumbi, had drafted the letter.

However, it is understood that Zuma now claims that although he signed the letter, it was actually written by Mbeki himself, working with a group of ministers.

The 2001 letter to Woods was used in the corruption trial of Zuma's former financial adviser Schabir Shaik in support of the charge that Shaik had sought a bribe from French arms company Thales by offering Zuma's protection against the investigation into the multibillion-rand arms deal.

In his judgment in the Shaik trial, Judge Hilary Squires said the letter was "hostile", and was additional proof that Zuma had been carrying out the task for which he had allegedly been bribed by Shaik and Thales.

Woods said yesterday: "A close look at the letter reveals possibilities of having accommodated the agendas of both the state president and former deputy president.

"So the finding of the court in this regard will be very important".

Asked for comment on the president being called as a witness, government spokesperson Joel Netshitenzhe said it would be ill-advised to comment on court cases, especially when they were already under way or coming before court.

"So we will cross that bridge when we come to it," he said.

ANC spokesperson Smuts Ngonyama was also reluctant to comment, saying it was not a party matter. "It is purely a government matter."

It was a distinction that Netshitenzhe also tried to draw.

He said there was a need to "differentiate between technical legal processes to establish the truth" and matters of politics that were managed within the ANC.

If Zuma goes ahead and calls Mbeki as a witness, it would be the first time that a sitting president is called to testify as a witness in a criminal trial.

Nelson Mandela, when he was president, testified in 1998 in a civil matter after then rugby boss Louis Luyt claimed the president had not applied his mind in allowing an investigation into the rugby union. angelaq@incape.co.za

From: http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=129&fArticleId=2983554

Business Day, Johannesburg, 07 November 2005

= **With Zuma on the hook, perhaps we should recall Mbeki’s ‘fishers’** =

By Cyril Madlala

With hindsight, perhaps we should revisit the subject of “fishers of corrupt men (and women)” that President Thabo Mbeki cautioned about some two years ago.

He made the point then that on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations, some in our country were convinced that our government was corrupt unless it proves itself innocent.

“The fishers of corrupt men,” Mbeki said, “happily construct doom scenarios that serve their purposes. They speculate about the possibility of a senior official being shown to be corrupt, and how this might lead to the conclusion that the whole procurement process was corrupted, resulting in ‘the whole edifice of the arms procurement exercise’ crumbling. The reality is that the wish is father to the thought.

“But is all sounds terribly dramatic and pregnant with potential to expose horrifying facts about massive corruption by our government, involving billions of rand. To prepare the public mind, words such as ‘scandal’ and ‘debacle’ must be, and are used.

“To add to the sense of impending horror, ‘senior members of government’ must be implicated, including ‘the highest reaches of government’, which means the president.

‘Further to whet the appetite for the espected catch that will be brought in by the fishers, the threat is made that a ‘shadow of allegations might engulf’ these ‘highest reaches’.”

When Mbeki wrote this, the then deputy president of the country, Jacob Zuma, was not aware that this Saturday hehimself would be at the Magistrate’s Court in Durban to start the long journey to defend himself against charges of corruption.

They arise from the same arms procurement deal that Mbeki spoke about. In the last few weeks, the president has again been expressing himself very strongly against corruption.

The decision to “relieve” Zuma of his duties as deputy president was seen by many as being designed to send a strong signal to the inter national community, particularly investors, that SA would not be yet another case of a corrupt African government.

What has, however, irked Zuma’s supporters is their perception that it was unfair to dismiss him before his guilt had been proven in court. They ask question why they should be told to let the law take its course when that was not respected before Zuma was stripped of his privileges as the second-most important citizen of the republic.

There is a belief that the Scorpions are being used selectively to target political opponents within the ANC. The suggestion is that it is fine for Mbeki to be firm against corruption, but then the Scorpions and their handlers should demonstrate equal vigour to get to the bottom of all the allegations being peddled in govern ment circles about several prominent citizens of this country.

For instance, is there any substance to allegations that a mining magnate is involved with drug cartels? Was there ever a basis for the story that a football honcho knows a thing or two about a murder but will not be touched because he has been kind to important people?

Everybody thought it was common knowledge that the Durban businessmen who are close to Zuma have over the years been very generous to several other politicians in KwaZulu- Natal. How have the politicians escaped the attention of the Scorpions who have expended so much time, energy and state resources to pursuing Zuma?

It could well be that a start had to made somewhere, and that by making Zuma an example, a strong message would be relayed to all that SA will tolerate not a whiff of corruption.

Fair enough. But let us see some even-handedness.

Let us earn more nods of approval from the international community for our stand against corruption by expelling from SA the former Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

The interim government of his country accuses him of drug trafficking and embezzling millions of dollars from the public purse. According to a lawsuit filed in the US, Aristide allegedly looted the public treasury and stole revenues belonging to a national telephone company.

Surely, a government that is so an ticorruption as to fire its own deputy president before he has been charged cannot shelter a former president who has been charged with looting the public coffers of a country said to the poorest in the western hemisphere.

The fishers of corrupt men and women that Mbeki spoke about should come out with facts about all that is supposed to be rotten in this land.

But then the government should be seen to welcome the opportunity to get to the bottom of corruption allegations. The experience of Independent Democrats leader Patricia de Lille and some journalists suggests that when fishers of corrupt men and women do make a catch, sometimes they are made to wish they had stayed away from the deeper waters.

But then, what is the point of fishing if the big ones are out of bounds?

‖Madlala is editor and publisher of umAfrika.

From: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/opinion.aspx?ID=BD4A109820