Cape Town - Deputy president Jacob Zuma rejected on Wednesday in parliament the view that the trial of his business adviser, Schabir Shaik, had cast a bad image on his office and the moral regeneration programme that he led.

Although questions about his relationship with Shaik were earlier barred by speaker Baleka Mbete, she allowed United Christian Democratic Party MP Paul Ditshetelo to ask: "Now, in the light of what is going on right now, would you regard the Schabir Shaik trial as a black spot on the image of your office, especially the moral regeneration programme?"

Zuma told the opposition MP: "Not at all. I don't look at it that way. Not at all."

Shaik is on trial for alleged corruption and fraud involving South Africa's arms deal.

Earlier, Mbete - in a letter to Democratic Alliance finance spokesperson Raenette Taljaard - said the issues raised in questions put to Zuma in the house by Taljaard were the subject of "a current judicial process".

"I wish to advise you, therefore, that the above question is out of order and cannot be proceeded with as it does not comply with the sub judice rule".

She noted that a rule of the National Assembly - rule 67 - stated that "no member shall refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending".

Mbete barred a question from DA MP Willem Doman who asked Zuma - in the national assembly - whether he should not stand down as head of the moral regeneration movement.

DA chief whip Douglas Gibson said in a statement that the questions put by Taljaard did not fall shy of the sub judice rule "since the deputy president is not accused and he is not a witness in the trial of Mr Shaik".

In particular, there was no judicial decision pending about the deputy president's reply to an earlier question in parliament in March last year.

There was also no judicial decision pending concerning the parliamentary ethics committee hearing in 2003, said Gibson.

"The rule must now be interpreted in the light of the protection to freedom of expression in our constitution," he said.

Gibson argued that the speaker's ruling extended the application of the rule "way beyond the scope of the rule as laid down by the Constitutional Court".

Gibson said that by ruling the matter to be sub judice and the questions to be out of order, the speaker was, in fact, "denying the deputy president the opportunity of clearing his name.

"There is a constant complaint that he is being subjected to a trial by media.

"Today provides the perfect opportunity for him to tell the public the facts without, in any way, affecting the outcome of the Shaik trial to which he is not a party."

With acknowledgements to Donwald Pressly, Iaine Harper and News24.