The defence in the Schabir Shaik fraud and corruption trial wrapped up its closing argument in the Durban High Court on Wednesday.

Defence advocate Francois Van Zyl gave alternative submissions should the evidence given in relation to charge number three not be accepted as the truth.

Count three of corruption against Shaik deals with an alleged bribe of R500 000 per year for Deputy President Jacob Zuma.

"The mere fact that an accused is untruthful in his evidence, does not necessarily mean that he has committed the offence charged. There may be other reasons why he decided not to tell the truth," said Van Zyl.

According to the State a bribe was solicited by Shaik from the French arms company Thomson CSF in exchange for protection during investigations into arms deal irregularities.

Shaik has maintained that he only asked the French company for a donation for Zuma's education trust fund. On Wednesday Van Zyl said: "The only evidence before the court involving Zuma or the alleged agreement was in the encrypted fax."

If Shaik had only used Zuma to convince Alain Thetard, who was the French company's representative in South Africa and author of the encrypted fax, to pay him half a million rand per year without Zuma's knowledge, then Shaik and Zuma "did not commit the offence in question".

However Van Zyl said Shaik may have tried to defraud Thetard.

He said there was "a reasonable possibility" that Shaik misrepresented the position to Thetard in order to get the R500 000 per year from Thomson until the African Defence System dividends paid out.

On Tuesday Van Zyl told the court that Thetard himself lacked credibility and that he could have made up the bribe agreement to get money from his company for himself.

Van Zyl said: "As he (Shaik) could not admit his deceit in evidence he decided to give a false explanation. In these circumstances he should not be convicted simply because he was not truthful with this honourable court".

He questioned what Zuma had been told or what was explained to him at the March 2000 meeting with Shaik and Thetard in Durban.

"What was Zuma told by accused one? That is the whole key to this," he said.

Van Zyl reminded the court that Shaik had been a conduit for bringing sums of money into and out of the country for the African National Congress during the struggle against apartheid. "He is not someone who is unaware of deceitful ways."

Responding to the defence's final argument, prosecutor Billy Downer said: "It is surprising and the first time in my experience *1 that the court at this late stage has been asked to speculate on the true version of events *2."

Downer said the focus of the trial was on Shaik not Zuma. "But that does not mean that an examination of Mr Zuma's constitutional duties was not relevant," referring to the alleged role Zuma played in assisting Shaik in his business interests.

The trial continues. *3

With acknowledgement to Sapa.

*1 Advocate Downer is a senior counsel with many years of service and experience in the prosecuting authorities. For this to be a first for him is truly remarkable.

*2 After well over 2 000 years of the development of the common law, it can't be often that one sees such bold new stuff in the criminal department.

*3 The mirth continues.

But sadly not for long.

eTV and SABC, are you charging your NiCads?