Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Banner Left
Banner Right

Court hears of Shaik-Zuma bond

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

Stay informed with The Namibian – your source for credible journalism. Get in-depth reporting and opinions for only N$85 a month. Invest in journalism, invest in democracy –
Subscribe Now!

Latest News