Shaik was ‘mistried‘, ConCourt told

Shaik is applying for leave to appeal his conviction on two counts of corruption and one of fraud, his 15-year prison sentence and the seizure of his assets, according to a report on the News24 site. Defence counsel Martin Brassey submitted that Shaik\'s trial was unfair because he was prosecuted in the absence of Jacob Zuma and the Thint group of companies, and because of irregularities in the conduct of the prosecution. He contended there was such a conflation of roles between the prosecution and the investigation that it produced a situation in which ‘the prosecution had an upper hand in relation to the accused’. He said: ‘The parity of arms between the prosecution and the accused was absent. In consequence, there was the capacity in the prosecution to become embroiled in the investigation; to lose its sense of distance and space and lose perspective on its prosecutorial role.’ Full report on News24 site

Bassey also argued the trial of Shaik was a ‘dry run’ by the prosecution to see whether it would succeed in prosecuting Zuma. ‘The court should have challenged the prosecution’s decision when it was made, and the prosecution should have been required to state its reasons for separating the cases, that it had put up Shaik as ‘bait’,’ argued Brassey. ‘That is deeply unfair,’ he said, according to a report on The Citizen site. Pressed to explain how Zuma’s absence had prejudiced Shaik, Brassey told the court that, had Zuma appeared, it would have been as the Deputy President of the country entering the box to tell the court ‘this is how it is between Shaik and me’. Zuma might have testified that he was a friend of Shaik, who had helped him ‘comrade to comrade’, as a compatriot, ‘as a father helps a son’. Brassey submitted to the court that the truth suffered if conspirators were not tried together, with particular regard to the specific circumstances in this case. Full report on The Citizen site