At the end of a day of high drama, Deputy President Jacob Zuma said last night that he would answer the 35 questions put to him by the Scorpions about his financial affairs, but he regarded them as an "invasion of his privacy".

He also lashed out at national director of public prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka for the treatment meted out to him.

Zuma's statement came 24 hours before the expiry of the deadline, at midnight tonight, that the Scorpions claimed to have set.

But in his statement, issued after a day of consultations with lawyers, Zuma insists no deadline was set for his response. "I shall respond at my earliest convenience."

Justice Minister Penuell Maduna, who had clashed sharply with Zuma over the source of the leak that led to the press's publication of the questions, said yesterday that Zuma had assured him he would answer them "very, very soon" and "in the fullest detail". Maduna said he wished to dispel the notion that Zuma was unwilling to co-operate with the Scorpions.

Zuma's lawyers are drafting responses to the questions about his financial affairs over the past 10 years and his relationships with his financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, and with the Thomson arms group.

The main allegation against Zuma is that he tried to solicit R500 000 from a company that benefited from the arms deal.

It is alleged that in return he offered to protect the firm during investigations into the arms deal.

These allegations were "utterly baseless", Zuma said. He said the Scorpions' questions were sent to him "after much legal pressure was brought to bear on the national prosecuting authority" by his lawyers.

He had been drafting his answers when, "to my amazement and outrage", the questions were published in "full graphic detail" by the Sunday press.

"I wish to express my unqualified support for the principle that every accused person is entitled to a fair investigation, uncontaminated by ulterior motives on the part of the investigating authorities, a speedy conclusion of the investigation and a fair trial in open court … ensuring that justice prevails," Zuma said in his statement.

Detailing an exchange of correspondence between his lawyers and the directorate of prosecutions, he said it showed how he had been subjected to repeated delays and frustrated in his efforts to advance the investigation.

"The correspondence shows that I was aggrieved by the national director's failure to afford me an opportunity to put my version before him," Zuma said, referring to Ngcuka.

"Only after I voiced my grievance through my lawyers did he invite me to answer a list of written questions."

His attorneys had written to Ngcuka on May 9 protesting at his refusal to confirm or deny media reports that an investigation into Zuma's affairs was under way, he said.

"Our client … is bitterly aggrieved at the conduct of your office towards him," his lawyers wrote.

"He has nothing to hide and rejects with contempt any suggestion that he has solicited or in any way agreed to accept or even discussed accepting a bribe."

If Ngcuka believed prosecution was warranted, it was his duty to bring it as soon as possible. "But to leave matters in limbo in this way makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for our client to defend his good name and reputation and is… a serious violation of our client's rights."

With acknowledgement to the Cape Times.