Open letter to South Africa’s students‚ universities and government‚ represented by Minister in the .
The argument presented by the lawyer of convicted fraudster Schabir Shaik in the Constitutional Court yesterday amounted to putting former deputy president Jacob Zuma "on the scene of the crime".
This is the view of political analyst Steve Friedman.
He said, however, that Zuma must be given a chance in a court of law to give his side of the story.
"He might have a good explanation about the whole matter," said Friedman.
Yesterday Shaik's lawyer, Martin Brassey, said the confiscation of "R30 to million R40million" worth of assets from Shaik following his fraud and corruption conviction was out of proportion to his "friend" Jacob Zuma's intervention in one arms deal dispute.
Brassey said Zuma's intervention at a meeting with Thomson France was only part of the "pot" of deals Shaik had with the company and its South African subsidiaries.
Brassey submitted that a figure of R1million would be more appropriate.
It was unfair to confiscate the higher amount on top of Shaik's 15-year sentence, and unconstitutional, he said.
"We say, to be blunt, if you are going to do anything, don't do more than R1million," Brassey said.
He said one intervention by Zuma was "grossly disproportionate" to the amount that was forfeited.
Zuma attended a meeting in London in 1998 with Thomson France when Shaik discovered that instead of the South African subsidiary of Thomson - with which his company Nkobi had a partnership - buying into defence company African Defence Systems, the French company bought it instead.
This went against an agreement the South African subsidiary and Shaik's company would benefit from the investment and potential arms deals.
Zuma went to the meeting to clarify Shaik's BEE credentials as the company had reservations. - Sapa