Shaik spoke up too late – State

A report on the News24 site says the court had taken into account the arguments by Shaik\'s counsel, Martin Brassey and Nirmal Singh, and counsel for the State, Wim Trengove, noted Chief Justice Pius Langa. It had also taken into account an objection by Trengove to what he claimed were new arguments brought by Singh for the first time late yesterday afternoon in his reply to the State\'s submissions. The State has argued that Shaik should have spoken up when the case first went to court, or at least when it was before the Supreme Court of Appeal if he was unhappy about the way the trial was being conducted. It has submitted that none of Shaik\'s contentions are constitutional matters of substance, or issues connected with decisions on constitutional matters. Full report on the News24 site

During argument yesterday, Trengove said Shaik was convicted because he repeatedly lied under oath, not because Jacob Zuma was not charged with him, according to The Star. Trengove vehemently denied that the State had used its case against Shaik as a ‘dry run’ for its thwarted prosecution of Zuma, as contended by Shaik’s lawyers. When Judge Hilary Squires convicted Shaik in 2005, he found that the Durban businessman was an unreliable witness who had lied repeatedly during his evidence, and even about his qualifications. Shaik, who is currently serving a 15 year sentence, has pinned his Constitutional Court bid for freedom on his claim that his trial was unfair because he, Zuma and French arms company Thint were not tried together. Full report in The Star

Trengove also argued that Billy Downer’s conduct in prosecuting Shaik was absolutely above reproach. All that was required of the prosecutor was not to show fear, favour or prejudice. There was no criticism that could be levelled at Downer’s conduct, he told the court, according to a report on The Citizen site. Even if there were, Shaik had been aware of it all along and should have raised it at the start of the trial and not waited to bring it to the Constitutional Court. Trengove described Shaik’s Constitutional Court action as a cynical attempt by someone who had finally reached a ‘dead end’ in the case. He accused Shaik’s counsel of scouring for any scrap of evidence they could find ‘from all over the place’ to support the action. However, he submitted, the ‘new evidence’ they brought was ‘not new at all’. He contended that Shaik’s counsel had known the substance of that information from the very start. As far as sentencing was concerned, Trengove held that one of the charges against Shaik was that between October 1995 and September 2002 he unlawfully and corruptly gave benefits, in the form of 238 payments, not legally due to Zuma. While it was true that some of the payments predated the minimum sentencing legislation, most post-dated the legislation, Trengove argued. Those that did exceeded the minimum threshold of R500 000 for the legislation to come into force. Full report on The Citizen site