Van Zyl’s closing argument focused as much on painting a picture of a Zuma who was above being corrupted as on rebutting the state’s claims against his client

As Schabir Shaik’s corruption and fraud trial enters its final phase, his defence team has presented Judge Hillary Squires with a simple decision to make: was Shaik’s relationship with Deputy President Jacob Zuma earned, or was it bought?

By doing so, defence counsel Francois van Zyl has moved to discredit the state case and ­ perhaps just as importantly ­ clear Zuma’s name.

If the strategy succeeds and leaves Judge Squires convinced that Shaik did not bribe Zuma, both men’s names will be cleared.

If it fails in part and Shaik is convicted, Van Zyl’s arguments may still be enough to head off any attempt by the National Prosecuting Authority to charge Zuma with corruption later.

Van Zyl’s closing argument, which began on Friday and continues on Tuesday, focused as much on painting a picture of a Zuma who was above being corrupted as on rebutting the state’s allegations against his client.

Van Zyl argued that, in drafting the first charge accusing Shaik of conducting a “generally corrupt relationship” with Zuma, the state had made a legal error.

The law outlined two kinds of corrupt acts ­ for past favours and for future ones ­ and combining these into a single charge related to R1.2-million given to Zuma was wrong.

The payments Shaik made to Zuma and on his behalf, Van Zyl said, predated the time frame of the state’s case and had begun simply because Zuma was broke and Shaik wanted to help his friend and former commander.

Van Zyl made much of this longstanding relationship in his argument: “The bond of friendship between [Shaik] and Zuma began during the years of the struggle against apartheid. Zuma recruited [Shaik] into the ANC. This comradeship developed into a very close and trusting relationship ... [which] also extended to their respective families.”

Zuma, Van Zyl said, gave “the best years of his life to the struggle and returned to South Africa from exile as a man in his 50s with no assets, in receipt of a small stipend from the ANC and nine children to educate and maintain”.

When his money ran out, Zuma began borrowing, both for his own needs and for ANC expenses he was paying out of his own pocket.

By 1997 the situation was so desperate that Zuma confided in Shaik about his financial problems and his intention to leave politics to earn a better living. Shaik responded by offering to help as he understood the importance of Zuma to peace in KwaZulu-Natal and “Zuma was of course a close friend and comrade”.

“What is important is that [Shaik] did not ‘buy’ that relationship. It existed long before [Shaik] decided to financially assist Zuma,” Van Zyl said.

Turning to state claims that Zuma punted Shaik to prospective business partners and allowed Shaik to use his name, Van Zyl said Zuma had “no power” to stop Shaik using his name.

The state, Van Zyl said, had not proved that Zuma knew his name was being used.

Van Zyl also argued that the state had failed to prove an intention by Shaik to bribe Zuma, or that Zuma had committed any act or omission because of the money he had received from his friend.

Further, an acknowledgment of debt and loan agreement between the two men showed Zuma intended to pay the money back.

Throughout Van Zyl’s address Shaik sat quietly, playing with his glasses. Lead prosecutor Billy Downer, who will respond to Van Zyl’s summation after it is completed on Wednesday, also watched intently.

Earlier in the week he and fellow prosecutor Anton Steinberg had hammered Shaik’s credibility as a witness, presenting a meticulously researched submission documenting many contradictions between Shaik’s evidence and that of defence witnesses.

Shaik and Zuma, Downer said, had a “deplorable system of corrupt patronage calculated to maintain Zuma in positions where he was available to further the interests of Shaik and his companies, as he did”.

With acknowledgements to Paddy Harper and the Sunday Times.