Critics of the Scorpions' investigation of the arms deal have described the case as "Mickey Mouse charges" and attempts "to make something out of nothing". They wish.

Much of the Scorpions' case is as yet unknown and will only be revealed in court, should charges ultimately be brought.

But what is already known and part of the public record could, on the face of it, easily be sufficient to bring a handful of criminal charges.

The question is not whether the Scorpions can bring charges, but how they could possibly avoid bringing charges based on these facts.

The case is not circumstantial. It is not based on hearsay. It relates to a variety of charges.

And it is already known at least "two scared witnesses" are available to testify.

Much of the Scorpions case is known because a quite devastating affidavit has found its way into the public domain, partly through some nifty journalism by the Mail & Guardian.

Perhaps because it has reported so avidly on the arms deal, the full significance of this scoop has not been fully appreciated.

The affidavit, submitted by Scorpions investigator William Downer in August 2001 in support of an application for search warrants, is simply dynamite.

The document consists of an encrypted fax sent by Alain Thetard, then head of the local branch of French arms firm Thompson CSF (now Thales) to his immediate bosses. The fax states "JZ" indicated he wished to receive R500000 a year in exchange for political support and lobbying. The implications of this document, if it is genuine and translated correctly, are dramatic.

Less well known are two other aspects of the Downer affidavit.

The first is that in November 2000, Durban businessman Shabir Shaik requested a meeting with Thompson in Mauritius and took with him a file of newspaper articles about the allegations of corruption in the arms deal.

This is what the affidavit states: "During the meeting with Thetard and another Thales official damage control' was discussed with reference to the said press clippings. Shabir Shaik expressed his concern about the possibility of further involvement in the investigation by the Heath investigation unit and mentioned there would really be something to worry about' should a certain individual open his mouth'."

The witness, who provided testimony about this event, was then sent out of the room.

The second aspect concerns the questioning of people at auditing firm Arthur Andersen who were responsible for a Thompson audit. They testified under oath they confronted Thetard at an audit in the first quarter of 2000 about allegations of bribery.

"Thetard denied the allegation he was involved in bribery. He added, however, that he was approach by parties seeking to solicit bribes from him," the affidavit states.

Thetard told the auditors such a request would be refused as a matter of course.

But the company would try to make it seem it was being considered so that the relationship between Thetard and the parties seeking to solicit bribes would not be soured. In later questioning Thetard denied he had made this statement.

The Scorpions also have corroborating evidence.

On January 19 2001 Zuma wrote a 12-page letter to Gavin Woods, the then chairman of the standing committee on public accounts (Scopa). Woods describes the letter as "extremely hostile and sarcastic" and says it was an attempt to ridicule the need for an investigation.

The letter said the committee had been "disrespectful of the executive and had offended foreign governments". Woods was taken aback by the letter, especially as he was engaged in a massive behind-the-scenes struggle to keep the arms deal probe on track in the way Scopa had intended.

According to Woods, there was at the time no apparent reason for Zuma's intervention. Four other cabinet ministers more directly involved had, only days before the letter was sent, launched an attack on the proposed probe. Why was Zuma intervening, instead of the ministers concerned?

This incident ties back into the affidavit because included in evidence is a letter sent by Shaik to Thetard on October 6 2000. The letter complains "my party is now saying we are renegeding (sic) on an agreed understanding".

The implication is obvious. Thales did not hand over any money. Zuma complained. Thetard, still unwilling to hand over a bribe, then might have said that Zuma had not done anything to live up to his part of the bargain, prompting Zuma to go public.

There are many ways Zuma and Shaik can meet these allegations. The letter might be a fake, the meetings fictitious, the allegations baseless. But it hardly takes Inspector Hercule Poirot to work out Zuma has a strong case to face.

With acknowledgements to Tim Cohen and the Business Day.