The directorate of public prosecutions is talking to lawyers representing Durban businessman Schabir Shaik on the date to question him about alleged attempts to bribe senior government officials, and particularly alleged efforts by Deputy President Jacob Zuma to solicit bribes.

The directorate said there was a chance Shaik might appeal against the ruling by the Durban High Court, which would probably delay the matter for months.

The order, given in chambers by Judge Ron McLaren, forces Shaik to answer questions about Zuma's involvement in the arms deal, and to provide documents needed for the investigation.

Advocate Nirmal Singh said yesterday he had still not received instructions from attorneys representing Shaik on how to proceed. State prosecutor Gerda Ferreira also confirmed that the matter had not been decided.

"We are still waiting for them to let us know whether they will appeal or not. If they decide not to proceed, then things will progress quickly, but should they decide to take the matter further, it could take months," she said.

Shaik was a director of Nkobi Holdings, African Defence Systems and Thomson CSF, which all benefited from the arms deal, and he was Zuma's friend and financial adviser.

Legal counsel for Shaik, who has been charged with the theft of state documents found at his home during a raid by the Scorpions in October 2001, argued in a trial within that trial that demands for him to answer questions when he was a suspect in the case were unconstitutional. The state has argued that Shaik is their only available witness in their investigation into Zuma.

Shaik was allegedly present at a meeting at which Zuma allegedly asked for R500000 a year in return for his protection of the company during the arms deal investigation and the country's future deals with Thales. Senior Thales executive Alain Thetard was also allegedly present.

Shaik is also expected to be questioned about his involvement in unexplained transactions involving former transport minister Mac Maharaj while he was in office.

McLaren ruled that the powers conferred in the National Prosecuting Authority Act were necessary for the directorate to conduct investigations and fulfil the constitutional purposes of the act. This made it possible for the act to override a person's constitutional right to remain silent.

Corruption required extraordinary measures to eradicate it, and the public had a right to know if the arms deal had been tainted by corruption in any way, he said.

It was irrelevant that Shaik was a suspect in a theft case as the state had made it clear it intended to question him about the bribery allegations, not the theft, McLaren said. There was sufficient protection for Shaik in any criminal trial he might face as a result of the inquiry.

With acknowledgements to Chantelle Benjamin and the Business Day.