FILE PICTURE: Convicted fraudster Schabir Shaik, who is out on medical parole for a terminal illness, is seen walking out of the Spar in Florida Road, Durban on Wednesday, 16 December 2009.
Even if Schabir Shaik does testify in the trial of President Jacob Zuma, it will not be a walk in the park for the prosecution.
Shaik told the Sunday Tribune yesterday he could not refuse to testify “if I am called to do so”. He said he would not be “vindictive” in his testimony, adding: “I will be guided by my conscience and welcome the opportunity to put certain aspects of my relationship and dealings with the president into perspective, which I did not have the opportunity to do previously.
“I’ve matured over the years and you learn to let go of the bitterness. I no longer have the relationship I had with the president before my conviction. But I have closure and any testimony I give will be based on facts, not on any act of vengeance,” he said.
Wits associate law professor James Grant said: “It is wonderful news Shaik is willing to testify against the president – but a cautionary rule does apply when the testimony of an accomplice is presented to the court.
“That rule requires the court to take into account the accomplice is often very well-placed to turn against a co-accused because they are very familiar with the facts.
“But in this case some, or all, of this may not apply because Shaik has nothing to lose by implicating Zuma,” Grant said.
The other person to clear the air is Thint/Thales arms dealer lawyer Ajay Sooklal, who told The Citizen yesterday he was also prepared to testify against Zuma.
Sooklal said he had evidence regarding the relationship between Zuma’s former spin doctor, Mac Maharaj, and Shaik. Shaik is nearing the end of his 15-year conviction on two counts of corruption for attempting to solicit a bribe for Zuma from an arms dealer and one count of fraud for altering financial statements.
With only two years to go on his sentence – spending most of it on medical parole – it seems there are matters he wants to clear up.
“Perhaps it would bring closure once and for all and give the president his day in court to explain matters for himself.” His “day in court” is something Zuma has asked for, for years, yet he has fought it on procedural grounds.
Attorney Tracey Lomax said Shaik would be subjected to cross-examination, but doubted he would be called as a Section 204 witness – a witness requiring indemnity against prosecution for self-implicating testimony.
“Obviously, Shaik will hear he is not a trustworthy person because he was found guilty of fraud. The irony of that approach is that he was found guilty of fraud vis-a-vis the person who will now be on trial,” Lomax said.
“Shaik doesn’t have anything to lose. He has not been given indemnity from prosecution, has served his time, and is not going to receive a shortened sentence. It is also going to be a nightmare for Zuma’s defence team to cross-examine him because whatever they dispute in his testimony, he can just refer back to his court appearances.”
Long-time arms deal critic Terry Crawford-Browne was sceptical the trial would go ahead.
“I’ve always said Zuma was a small fish and Thabo Mbeki had a bigger role. But I’ve made a submission to the judicial commission of inquiry into state capture, so we’ll see,” said Crawford-Browne.
– amandaw@citizen.co.za