Joel Netshitenzhe, the chief government spokesperson, has drawn a line in the sand regarding the political future of Jacob Zuma, or so it would seem. Zuma he says, is a man of his honour who deserves to be taken at his word.

The African National Congress government will not allow him to resign as it would set an undesirable precedent of resignation on the basis of mere allegations.

Netshitenzhe, who speaks with full authority of President Thabo Mbeki, has broken a very long government silence in relation to Zuma, who has been hung out to dry for nearly two years now under suspicion of corruption.

It is alleged that Zuma solicited a R500 000 bribe from a French arms company in return fo his influence in securing a contract.

Two weeks ago, Mbeki said the investigation had gone on long enough and should be brought to close.

Last weekend, Bulelani Ngcuka, the director of national prosecutions, announced that there was prima facie evidence of corruption against Zuma but that the evidence would not guarantee a conviction in court of law.

If further evidence came to light, the investigation could be reopened.

Far from bringing the matter to close, Ngcuka's intervention made it more difficult for Mbeki to appeal to Zuma to stand down.

Zuma can clear his name only in a court of law and Ngcuka has denied him that opportunity while perpetuating the cloud of suspicion hanging over him.

When the charge sheet against Schabir Shaik, Zuma's financial advisor, was published this week, it was clear that the allegations against Zuma had now shifted to prima facie evidence.

But it is not clear why Ngcuka did not proceed with Scorpions plan to prosecute Zuma.

It was clear from the charge sheet that money had changed hands and that R1,16 million had been paid into Zuma's account, albeit by circuitous routes. The charge sheet refers to the relationship between Zuma and Shaik as "generally corrupt".

Given Mbeki's unwavering commitment to clean and open government both in South Africa and the establishment of the African Union, it is untenable for the second most powerful politician in th country to continue deputising for the president and leading the country's moral regeneration campaign while there is prima facie evidence that he is corrupt.

Mbeki's failure to exercise leadership by at least persuading Zuma to stand down while his name is cleared leads to one of several possible conclusions.

The first is that Zuma, a former ANC intelligence chief, possesses information that could damage the ruling party.

The second is that acting against Zuma would mean acting against the ANC, which allegedly benefited financially from the arms deal through a 10 percent stake in Nkobi Holdings.

Third, Zuma would win a showdown with Mbeki in the ANC.

But Mbeki appears to see things differently.

The prima facie evidence against Zuma gives Mbeki the reason he needs not to reappoint Zuma as deputy president of the country after next year's election even if he stays on as deputy president of the ANC.

The last in a long line of populist leaders will have been emasculated and Mbeki can rule for a second term with an ever-tighter grip on the ruling party, with the succession vacuum resolved by the appointment of a deputy president.

Who is it to be? Our guess is Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, who, while not wining accolades for her performance as minister of foreign affairs, nevertheless does have Mbeki's full confidence.

With acknowledgement to the Sunday Independent.