Bulelani Ngcuka, the national director of public prosecutions, said last weekend : "We have concluded that, whilst there is a prima facie case of corruption against the deputy president, our prospects of success are not strong enough. That means that we are not sure if we have a winnable case.

"Accordingly we have decided not to prosecute the deputy president."

But on Monday the state's case against Schabir Shaik was lodged, and the charge sheet, while levelled only at Shaik and 11 of his companies, alleges that the deputy president of South Africa was the recipient, from various entities controlled by Shaik, of several hundred amounts over a seven-year period ending in October 2002.

Much of the case is about payments to Jacob Zuma. One schedule in the charge sheet is headed : "List of identified payments by Schabir Shaik and or the Nkobi Group to or on behalf of Deputy President Jacob Zuma." Its total is R1 161 562.

From October 1995 to September 2002 there are about 400 payments listed. The categories include motor expenses, where sums vary from R4 000 to R14 000 and arise on a near-monthly basis; rent - usually R3 500; education, where payees are the university of Zululand, Holy Family College, Sacred Heart Convent and St Catherine's, and the sums hover around R8 000.

There are several payments of about R10 000 for clothing from a supplier called Casanova. There are frequent cash payments of R600 each to Sadie, Edward, Duduzane, Pumzile and Msholozi Zuma. There are payments to banks to settle Zuma's debts to them.

The state alleges that the payments made to Zuma "make no business sense". Such amounts, it is alleged, "are not reflected as a liability in any financial documentation relating to Zuma". It is also alleged that Zuma could "at no stage" afford to repay the "loan".

One must infer that either Shaik was incomprehensibly generous to his old comrade or that he hoped that gains arising from the deputy president's indebtedness to him would make the generosity worth while. What other inference is there to make?

To read the schedules is to feel despair. If true (and they are detailed by the state prosecutor, not the media, and in such a way as to be "prima facie" very convincing) the scheduled payments reveal that the person now one heartbeat away from the presidency regularly had his personal and family expenses met by a businessman who lived from getting or trying to get contracts from the state.

Zuma's only defence could be to prove that Shaik, as his financial advisor, made the advances in reasonable expectation of repayment. The deputy president does have a salary.

My reaction before reading the charge sheets against Shaik was that it was reasonable for Ngcuka to hesitate to prosecute a man alleged to have asked for; but not received, a bribe from an arms manufacturer. How could hard evidence be found for such a charge?

But now that we know the details of the payments alleged by the state - that is by Ngcuka's own people - to have been improperly made by Shaik to Zuma, the public can make no sense of Ngcuka's decision to "clear" Zuma, even temporarily. We must now expect an explanation from the director of prosecutions as to why Zuma was not formally charged in the Shaik case, where he is present as the recipient, or potential recipient, of allegedly improper payments.

What will matter now will be the judgement of the court in what is willy-nilly, the Shaik-Zuma matter. People are now much less inclined to dismiss the chances of Terry Crawford-Browne's court action on the legality of the arms deal.

What will matter most, historically, will be the judgement of voters next year, when elections are expected in April to mark the 10th anniversary of the new South Africa, which is so worthy of our love.

The ANC must be mad not to distance itself from Zuma, at least until a court rules on his behaviour. If the party does not do so it will risk betraying its obligations as the great and dominant party in the country.

The loyalty of voters to the ANC is assumed by nearly all observers to be immense, and, if we take the larger view, mostly well-earned. The party has led the creation of a great constitutional modern state.

It's generally believed that we have no opposition party capable of dislodging the ANC. Given that assumed reality, what would happen in an election with Zuma on the ANC's ticket? Confused voters would be told to blame the media and the opposition, not the ANC. This tactic might not work, even with unsophisticated voters. Everyone will feel contradictory emotions and confusion, for it is not the media that have charge Shaik with corrupting the deputy president. It is the state that has done so.

Confusion in a state is a terrible thing, with horrible consequences. Mbeki must be loyal to the country and his oath of office and shed Zuma now. And Ngcuka must explain why the payer of what the state calls improper funds is charged, but the receiver not.

With acknowledgements to Rob Amato and the Sunday Independent.