Why Jacob Zuma’s defence won’t fly
The president’s representations to the NPA — about why he shouldn’t be charged again for corruption, fraud and a host of other charges — are unlikely to succeed
Short of a miracle, President Jacob Zuma’s argument for why the 2007 corruption indictment against him should not be revived will flop. Here are three reasons why: The Shaik conviction Zuma’s former financial adviser Schabir Shaik was convicted, in a damning ruling in 2005, of corrupting Zuma for payments made for the benefit of Zuma and his family. Key to that judgment was a R1m bribe allegedly solicited for Zuma by Shaik from French arms company Thomson CSF/Thint, (now known as Thales), in exchange for Zuma’s influence in shutting down any arms deal inquiry. That alleged "bribe" is linked, says the state, straight back to Nkandla. According to the indictment Zuma will face if charged, he needed R1.34m to complete construction work at his homestead, long before it became the subject of former public protector Thuli Madonsela’s "Secure in Comfort" report. "At no stage during construction and thereafter has [Zuma] been able to settle the outstanding amount, or obtain finance without ...
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Subscribe now to unlock this article.
Support BusinessLIVE’s award-winning journalism for R129 per month (digital access only).
There’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in SA. Our subscription packages now offer an ad-free experience for readers.
Cancel anytime.
Questions? Email helpdesk@businesslive.co.za or call 0860 52 52 00. Got a subscription voucher? Redeem it now.