[ad_1]
Defendant number one former president Jacob Zuma is accused of benefiting from 783 payments from Schabir Shaik, who in turn received some, if not all, of the money from Thales. (Photo: EPA-EFE / KIM LUDBROOK / POOL)
Thales South Africa maintains that it had a legitimate business association with Jacob Zuma’s former financial advisor and convicted con man, Schabir Shaik, and was unaware that Shaik was financing the former president’s lifestyle through a corrupt ‘advance’.
Thales South Africa, the subsidiary of the French arms company that is expected to be tried alongside former President Jacob Zuma, believes that the office of the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) lacks evidence to charge the company with extortion.
Instead, the company argued in Pietermaritzburg High Court on Monday that it had a legitimate business relationship with Zuma’s former financial advisor and convicted of fraud, Schabir Shaik.
Thales also maintained that he did not know that Shaik was financing Zuma’s lifestyle through a corrupt “servant.”
The company was awarded a R2.6 billion contract as part of the German Frigate Consortium to provide combat suites for the four Meko-class frigates of the South African Navy as part of the 1999 Strategic Defense Acquisition Package, known as the Agreement of Weapons.
Intertwined in this deal were several politically connected black economic empowerment partners, such as Shaik and his company, Nkobi Holdings.
Arguing for Thales, Barry Roux SC tried to create as much distance as possible between his client and the former head of state in conflict.
Roux said Thales’ court filings showed that there was no evidence connecting Thales to a racketeering charge alongside Zuma.
In the criminal case they both face, Thales (the two defendants) allegedly paid Zuma, through Shaik, for his political support to ensure treatment and protection from investigation and prosecution.
Defendant number one, Zuma, is accused of benefiting from 783 payments from Shaik, who in turn received some, if not all, of the money from Thales.
“We say in our presentations that there was no such evidence. We are saying that if you look at the approach of the state and the prosecutor, why are they also accusing Thales of the [Zuma] Organized crime? ”Roux told the entire bank.
He said the money paid to Shaik and his companies was “[Thales’] own money ”and not“ the proceeds of crime ”.
“Why does the state want to accuse Thales de Zuma when they know nothing about these payments? Shaik ran that company that became involved in a pattern of organized crime activities. From 1995 to March 2000 there is no evidence that Thales was aware of these payments. [to Zuma] let alone that he participated, ”said Roux.
He said the court was “obliged to intervene, as the accusation will be irrational and arbitrary.”
The NDPP would not have charged the company for organized crime activities if it had “objectively” considered the available facts before it, he said. The NDPP had relied on “mere accusations by the prosecution without knowing whether the accusations were supported by the available evidence.”
“This reduced the functions of the PNDP to a rubber stamp exercise in violation of the principle of legality, leading to the unfair and irrational prosecution of Thales South Africa for organized crime.”
In addition to citing current NDPP Shamila Batohi as a defendant, Thales also cited former NDPP Mokotedi Mpshe SC, who dropped all charges against Zuma in 2009 within months of a national election, and Shaun Abrahams.
Abrahams was forced to reinstate the charges after the Democratic Alliance in April 2016 obtained a landmark ruling in the North Gauteng Superior Court, upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeals a year later, which found that the withdrawal of the charges by part of Mpshe was irrational and should be nullified. .
Roux said there was no evidence identifying Thales as being aware of payments made by Shaik or his companies to Zuma, and therefore the company was framed for a common purpose.
This is not Thales’ first attempt to escape prosecution. In July 2018, the National Prosecutor’s Office rejected Thales’s statements of not being charged, while in May 2020 the Constitutional Court dismissed Thales’s direct appeal to the highest court to have the charges permanently vacated.
The key to the argument presented by Roux is a 2007 Indictment Memorandum sent to the NDPP office where the state acknowledged that the accusations against Thales “remains one of the weakest aspects of this case, as it is predominantly based [on] inferences rather than direct evidence, making it vulnerable to … criticism. ”
Roux said there was no evidence identifying Thales as being aware of payments made by Shaik or his companies to Zuma, and therefore the company was framed for a common purpose.
“The fact that the prosecution remains unable to provide the factual basis for this particular racketeering charge confirms that there is, and never could have been, any evidence to support these allegations.”
If Roux’s argument is successful, it will leave Zuma the latest man charged with taking bribes totaling more than R4 million, a negligible sum in the wake of the allegations made against Zuma’s lieutenants before the state capture commission. .
But as detailed in the heads of state argumentation, it is not the case of the state that Thales was aware of every payment from Shaik to Zuma, but rather that at least in 1998 the state knew that Shaik was paying Zuma:
“The evidence … supports a defensible inference that by 1998, at the latest, Thales group officials who controlled Thales SA knew that Mr. Shaik and Nkobi [Holdings] had Mr. Zuma in an ‘advance’ in exchange for which Mr. Zuma had used and would use his influence and political connection to benefit them and their business partners (such as the Thales group), and that Thales group officials did not They only agreed with the situation, but actively sought assurance from Mr. Zuma that his association with Mr. Shaik and Nkobi would benefit the Thales group in its business in South Africa, in particular its involvement in the arms business. as a provider of the combat suite. for the corvettes. ”
Advocating for the state, Wim Trengove SC said Thales agreed to pay Zuma to protect the company.
“They not only conspired to hide past bribes, they joined in on future bribes. They knew that Shaik was bribing Zuma.
“[The State is] saying that the agreement to pay a bribe is a crime and … it was a separate agreement that led to the concealment of that payment, which is money laundering. That money was disguised as a legitimate service fee, ”Trengove said.
The state maintains that it has “strong evidence” that October 1999 and March 2000 the Thales group and Shaik “actively involved Zuma in” planning an illegal arrangement “in which Zuma would receive” an annual payment of R500,000 from the arms company. “
This payment, the state said, would be held until Nkobi Holdings began receiving dividends for its role in the arms deal and that “Mr. Zuma would protect the Thales group against the ongoing investigation into corruption with the arms deal and it would also permanently promote their interests ”.
In the state’s chiefs of argument, he cited one item in particular where he claims Thales must have been aware of the illegal relationship between Shaik and Zuma.
“In February 2001, the Thales group paid around R250,000 to Kobitech (Pty) Ltd (a Nkobi group company), which then paid R250,000 to one of Mr. Zuma’s creditors, Development Africa. This is one of the 783 payments that appear in the calendar of the indictment. ”
The trial has been reserved. DM
