The main actor, Schabir Shaik, makes light of it by likening the "draft" criminal charges against him to a Pulitzer Prize winning work of fiction.

The deputy president, Jacob Zuma, who is assigned a strong supporting role in Shaik's charge sheet, dares the national directorate of public prosecutions to charge and prosecute him before a court of law. The deputy president even threatens legal action which he believes will clear his name.

On the other side, Bulelani Ngcuka, the national director of public prosecutions, declines to prosecute Zuma despite the very detailed expose of the relationship and transactions between him and Shaik, which are behind the latter's indictment.

More still, terms such as "comrade criminals" and loud denials of leaks of the investigation to the press fly around with abandon.

It is essential to point out the matter is sub judice and any comments and observations should be of such a nature as not to prejudice the prosecutions's case or the right of the accused to a fair trial .

The national director of public prosecutions has the sole constitutional mandate to decide to prosecute or not to prosecute any alleged criminal offender. The power is to be exercised "without fear, favour or prejudice".

This constitutional mandate, expressed in section 179 of the constitution, is not what has happened here. In this instance the decision not to prosecute, despite having established "prima facie" cases of corruption, fraud or tax evasion, according to Ngcuka, was taken purely on the basis that the information and evidence available is insufficient to secure a conviction.

In other words, the prosecution is convinced the evidence at its disposal cannot pass the rigorous test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

With due respect to the national director, there seems to be a serious contradiction here. In the absence of information and evidence to contradict or to fault the credibility of a prima facie case before a court of law, there is generally a presumption of a reasonable prospect of establishing guilt.

If Shaik's "draft" charge sheet is anything to go by, it appears that there is plenty of evidence of association and circumstantial evidence linking the charged parties and the deputy president.

But such circumstances do not necessarily point to a prima facie case.

Besides, all the prosecution can do is to weigh its chances of success in a criminal proceeding. The decision as to whether a prima facie case is established is made by the judge.

The case has brought to the fore the difficult but necessary dual roles of the Scorpions: investigation and prosecution. It is conceivable that in some cases handled by the Scorpions the zeal to prosecute may compromise the manner in which the investigation is carried out.

This tension explains the recent call for streamlining the relationship between the police and the Scorpions. In conducting investigations, the Scorpions perform the role assigned to the police in section 205(3) of the constitution. The main concern is that where the investigation is compromised in any way, it stands to reason the relevance, admissibility and credibility of the evidence may be called into question.

The Zuma-Shaik case is a classic in the interface between law and politics, with national and international dimensions. The manner and circumstances of politicians' business connections and interests in a capitalist economy is under scrutiny. There is no law in South Africa or in any other capitalist society in the world that prohibits practising politicians or even judges from engaging in private businesses. What is regulated is direct involvement in the operations and boards of companies while one is in office.

In other words, engagement in activities that have the potential for conflict of interest and corruption is the main concern. In this regard, some of the charges that appear in the charge sheet against Shaik do not directly point to criminal wrongdoing on the part of the parties. But others do. The test will be in the court.

The behind-the-scenes operation of global investments by transnational corporations, a subject of corporate governance, has also come under examination. Here the role of states in areas of mutual co-operation and assistance in criminal matters is very much at issue. The Scorpions have accused the French authorities of being unco-operative. In rebuttal, they allege the South African investigators have visited France on two separate occasions and were given access to the corporation in question. Who is telling the truth? The jury is still out, but competent investigative journalism should come to our rescue.

It will be difficult for the deputy president to recover from the crisis. Shaik's trial holds the only real prospect for either sinking or rescuing Jacob Zuma's personal image and political career. Above all, let justice and the rule of law emerge strengthened in the process of resolving this case and the crisis that has accompanied it.

Professor Shadrack Gutto is the director of the Centre for African Renaissance Studies University of South Africa (UNISA)

With acknowledgements to Shadrack Gutto and the City Press.