An avalanche of files descends on the court - including a disputed document in which Jacob Zuma acknowledges his debt

Next week forensic auditor Johan van der Walt will be back in the witness box to be further cross-examined by counsel for Durban businessman Schabir Shaik.

It will be the third week of evidence for Van der Walt who explained the paper trail between Shaik, Zuma and the Nkobi group of companies to the court.

The amount of files seems to escalate by the day as the senior counsel for Shaik, Francois van Zyl SC, adds more and more exhibits to the State's avalanche of paper.

The State firstly alleges that Shaik made R1,2-million in payments to Deputy President Jacob Zuma in exchange for Zuma's loyalty to Nkobi Holdings and the use of his name.

This, the leader of the prosecution Billy Downer SC, said in his opening remarks, would be a pivotal part of the "back door" process followed to obtain lucrative contracts. He added that the payments made no business sense as Nkobi was often in a "cash-starved" position.

Secondly, the State alleges that Shaik was involved in the fraudulent "writing-off of amounts" loaned to Zuma in Nkobi's books.

The other charge of corruption against Shaik relates to an allegation by the State that Shaik was involved in procuring a R1-million bribe for Zuma from French arms company Thint.

In his plea explanation Shaik admitted the bulk of the payments, but said it was an effort to help a close friend. He admitted the writing-off of some of the Zuma loans, but said this was done in error and later rectified. He further denied attempts to solicit a bribe for Zuma.

Van der Walt's main conclusions were that:

The relationship between Zuma and Shaik developed into one of financial dependence when the Nkobi group of companies was started.
If Shaik was indeed Zuma's financial advisor he was not a very good one.
"A good financial advisor would have told him to stop making debt," Van Zyl said. "Shaik just paid Zuma's debts."
There is evidence that Zuma was involved in Shaik's business dealings since then.

Nkobi was in financial trouble at the time and the payments to Zuma just made it worse. As a result the payments made no business sense at all.

Shaik also seemed confident that he could influence tender procedures and official processes.

There was an irregular write-off of money borrowed from Nkobi by Shaik, amongst others. The fact that some of this might have been reversed later, does not make the first write-off less of a crime.

During cross-examination, Advocate Francois van Zyl SC said his client would testify that:

The money deal between Deputy President Jacob Zuma and Durban businessman Schabir Shaik was on paper, signed and declared to parliament. (Van der Walt conceded that there was some form of acknowledgement of debt between Shaik and Zuma but added that he could find no evidence of attempts by Shaik and Nkobi to claim back the money.)
The agreement is on paper and filed in the confidential section of parliament's asset register. (The State said they would dispute the authenticity of this document).
The payments to Zuma were no secret to either those who worked at Nkobi or outsiders.

With acknowledgements to Estelle Ellis and Saturday Star.