Because of the Scorpions probe into the relationship between Deputy President Jacob Zuma and businessman Schabir Shaik, Zuma was so "sensitive" about renewing a revolving credit agreement between them that he did not want it in writing, Shaik says.

Despite the investigation, Shaik, who has pleaded not guilty to fraud and corruption, said he had not stopped helping Zuma financially.

It was, he explained, what comrades did for each other.

Shaik, who gave evidence in his defence in the Durban High Court yesterday, said he had discovered that three other business people - Jurgen Kogl, Nora Fakude and Durban businessman Vivien Reddy - were also helping Zuma financially.

A sombre Shaik complained of fatigue and of being distracted by the "learned colleagues" (the State's legal team) on his left.

The mystery about the loan deal deepened yesterday as Shaik told how the revolving credit agreement had been drawn up and signed on Zuma's insistence in 1999.

He told the court he had extended the agreement between him and Zuma last year, but because of the Scorpions investigation, Zuma was "sensitive" about putting it on paper.

"I agreed to extend the agreement orally," Shaik said. "I am sincere about it. I don't believe it was signed recently."

The State wants the original document so that it can be sent for forensic analysis. The State is also disputing its authenticity.

"I don't have the original," Shaik said. "I asked Zuma and he said he lodged it with the appropriate person in Cabinet."

Cabinet secretary Frank Chikane, however, wrote a letter to the Scorpions saying they could not find the original agreement. Shaik told the court that he was continuing financial assistance to Zuma and was "comfortable" that Zuma would pay back the money *1.

"I look towards the fact that we are friends and hope that he will find it in his heart to repay me."

Shaik testified that Zuma had given him the titles of economic adviser and financial adviser. He explained that he saw his job as financial adviser as "assisting Zuma with his shortfall" *2.

"Zuma knew I would fix the problem by issuing cheques," he said.

He told the court that Nelson Mandela had offered to give Zuma funds to help him get him back on his feet. "Mandela was concerned that his financial woes would distract him from his duties."

Shaik paid for Zuma's air ticket to go see Mandela. He also drew up a list of what Zuma owed, which included R200 000 due to a family trust of Shaik and his wife.

He said that when he took over Zuma's finances, the deputy president had many money troubles. "I have to confess, they were in a financially straitened crisis.

"They had no assets and a low level of income. This was the world of our exiles. The burden of society to reintegrate children into the education system was too much of a burden for one person to bear.

"I thought I would share it with him," Shaik told the court.

With acknowledgements to Estelle Ellis and the Cape Argus.

*1 But also equally "comfortable" if Zuma didn't pay back the money.

*2 But since when does an advisor assist with the payment of hard cash and not by the giving of sound advice?

This is financier not an advisor. Logic has it that if one is a financier, but does not expect the return of the finance, then one is a donateer or benefactor. If one donates or beneficiates material sums of finance to politicians in a position to offer da quid pro quo then the benefactor is called the briber and the beneficiary is called the bribee.

When the bribee doesn't actually have sufficient wonga to splodge on the bribee himself and arranges with a third party to do so, then the first party becomes a co-conspirator, along with the third party (the second party as well should there be a trilateral meeting with the transmitting and receiving of pre-arranged encoded declarations).

It is then customary to refer to briber, bribee, co-conspirator, Prevention of Corruption Act and Riotous Assemblies Act closely justa-position in one tome called the Indictment.

It is a pity that some foolish stooge (NDPP) failed to allow this to happen and many of the most important ingredients were omitted from this thin, but unsavory soup.