"To grasp at a possible straw of salvation, to seek refuge in a version that was not testified or tested, is self-serving and repugnant."

This was the reaction on Wednesday of prosecuting advocate Billy Downer to the late argument by Schabir Shaik's counsel that - as reported by Weekend Witness on Saturday - Shaik could have lied to the Durban High Court and defrauded French arms company Thomson-CSF and its South African operation's boss, Alain Thetard, by giving the impression that he was soliciting a bribe to Deputy President Jacob Zuma when, in fact, he was pocketing the money for himself.

Francois van Zyl said that if the court did not accept Shaik's version that he facilitated a donation from Thomson-CSF to Zuma's Education Trust Fund, then it is submitted that Shaik misrepresented his position to Thetard, "with intent to get Thomson to pay him R500 000 per annum until the ADS dividends are paid and that as he could not admit his deceit in evidence, he decided to give a false explanation".

The alleged bribe relates to count three against Shaik - contravention of the Corruption Act of 1992.

"If [Shaik] had merely used Zuma to convince Thetard to pay him R500 000 per year until the dividends from ADS became available, without Zuma's knowledge, Zuma and [Shaik] did not commit the offence in question. [Shaik], however, may have committed fraud on Thetard," Van Zyl said.

"He could have easily convinced Thetard that he was making a request for a bribe on behalf of Zuma. It was no secret that Zuma and accused one were friends," he said.

He went on to say that if Zuma was not aware of Shaik's scheme to defraud Thetard and Thomson-CSF, the R500 000 per annum did not qualify as a bribe as the deputy president did not know he was "supposed to have been bribed and that he had to protect Thomson against the arms deal investigation and support them in future projects".

Downer responded that it was surprising, and a first in his experience, that the court was asked at such a late stage to speculate on the true version of events.

After the conclusion of argument, Judge Hillary Squires commented that as "all rivers eventually reach the sea we have reached the sea".

Squires thanked both the state and defence for the meticulous way *1 they presented the evidence.

He made special mention of the professional manner in which both teams conducted themselves, without "personal squabbles" getting in the way of court proceedings.

Squires said that, contrary to media reports, he has not yet set a date for the judgment, but is certain it will not be May 30 as reported. He said in all probability judgment will be given after May 30 to allow adequate time to review the evidence. Squires will release the date at a later stage.

Meanwhile, members of the public with cameras in hand and journalists, who have spent about six months following the trial, eagerly waited outside the court house to hear Shaik's final comments. However, former journalist Ranjeni Munsamy, who recently joined Shaik's entourage, announced that Shaik will only comment after judgment.

The state's team - Downer, Anton Steynberg and Santosh Manilall - walked out of court looking very pleased and for the first time since the start of the trial stopped to talk to journalists.

Downer said he thought their case against Shaik "went very well" and his team did their best.

He said he was not surprised that Squires noted the professional manner in which both teams conducted themselves as "counsel are obliged to act professionally".

Downer and his team are now off for a "bit of a holiday and then back to work".

With acknowledgements to Nivashni Nair and The Natal Witness.

*1 Thanks - it makes things so much easier.