Shaik ‘mistried’

SCHABIR Shaik was mistried, his legal team told the Constitutional Court yesterday.

“The conviction and sentence were the culmination of a trial that, being unfair, was in breach of constitutional guarantees against punishment without due course of law,” the court was told. Shaik is applying for leave to appeal his conviction on two counts of corruption and one of fraud, his 15-year prison sentence and the seizure of his assets.Defence counsel Martin Brassey submitted that Shaik’s trial was unfair because he was prosecuted in the absence of African National Congress deputy president Jacob Zuma and the Thint group of companies, and because of irregularities in the conduct of the prosecution.He contended there was such a conflation of roles between the prosecution and the investigation that it produced a situation in which “the prosecution had an upper hand in relation to the accused”.”The parity of arms between the prosecution and the accused was absent.”In consequence, there was the capacity in the prosecution to become embroiled in the investigation; to lose its sense of distance and space and lose perspective on its prosecutorial role,” Brassey said.It was submitted that the trial judge should have asked why Zuma and Thint were not charged with Shaik, given they were “embroiled and engaged in a relationship in which they were inextricably bound up”.Brassey said the defence contended that, at the time of the trial, it did not have insight into the results of the failure to join the trials, and did not have the capacity to fully appreciate the extent of prosecutorial irregularities.Arguing that evidence from Zuma’s trial be admitted to the record of Shaik’s trial, the defence told the court it would find itself “hard pressed” to demonstrate that Shaik was victim of an unfair trial without the new evidence.Nampa-SapaShaik is applying for leave to appeal his conviction on two counts of corruption and one of fraud, his 15-year prison sentence and the seizure of his assets.Defence counsel Martin Brassey submitted that Shaik’s trial was unfair because he was prosecuted in the absence of African National Congress deputy president Jacob Zuma and the Thint group of companies, and because of irregularities in the conduct of the prosecution.He contended there was such a conflation of roles between the prosecution and the investigation that it produced a situation in which “the prosecution had an upper hand in relation to the accused”.”The parity of arms between the prosecution and the accused was absent.”In consequence, there was the capacity in the prosecution to become embroiled in the investigation; to lose its sense of distance and space and lose perspective on its prosecutorial role,” Brassey said.It was submitted that the trial judge should have asked why Zuma and Thint were not charged with Shaik, given they were “embroiled and engaged in a relationship in which they were inextricably bound up”.Brassey said the defence contended that, at the time of the trial, it did not have insight into the results of the failure to join the trials, and did not have the capacity to fully appreciate the extent of prosecutorial irregularities.Arguing that evidence from Zuma’s trial be admitted to the record of Shaik’s trial, the defence told the court it would find itself “hard pressed” to demonstrate that Shaik was victim of an unfair trial without the new evidence.Nampa-Sapa