Schabir Shaik's 18-day ordeal in the witness box came to an end with a bang this week as he faced a final tough round of questions from Judge Hillary Squires.

Judge Squires focused on Shaik's status in the African National Congress, referring particularly to a May 1995 letter from then-ANC treasurer Arnold Stofile, which indicated that he had been instructed to cut all official ties with Shaik.

During his evidence, Shaik has emphasised his close relationship with the ANC and ascribed much of his financial support for Deputy President Jacob Zuma to payments made essentially on behalf of the ANC.

Judge Squires put it to Shaik that he had attracted the disapproval of the organisation by pursuing his private business interest on the back of the party. "You were earning considerable commissions from the Malaysians at a time when the ANC was R40-million in the red."

Judge Squires also questioned Shaik's using an ANC letterhead to arrange a business transaction from which he was to benefit.

Shaik argued that at that stage "in my mind" he was still representing the interests of the ANC. Evidence has been led that Shaik still intended at that time to include a minority shareholding for the ANC in his Nkobi group, but this never happened.

The judge's questions go to the heart of Shaik's relationship with the party and, by extension, Zuma : was it benign, or motivated by personal gain from what Shaik himself has referred to as his "political connectivity"?

Judge Squires also raised Shaik's hackles by questioning how his companies had really contributed to black economic empowerment.

Earlier, having completed his main cross-examination, Shaik appeared confident, even defiant. He told reporters the case had been , in effect, a trial by medial of Zuma as "Comrade Bulelani" had intended. Shaik was referring to former director of public prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka.

Meanwhile, the defence faced a setback when it emerged that no original documentation could be found of the R2-million revolving loan agreement signed between Shaik and Zuma in 1999.

The court was told earlier that the original was lodged with Parliament, but this proved to be inaccurate. Zuma's attorney, former ANC intelligence operative Julekha Mahomed, told the court that she had travelled to Durban shortly after the 1999 election to prepare a loan document for Zuma and Shaik to sign, which they had done.

She said she had kept the original, but that only a copy could be found in her case file.

However, some support for Shaik's position emerged from a letter from Cabinet secretary Frank Chikane, who revealed that Zuma had declared liabilities to Shaik in his 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 Cabinet declarations.

In a letter to Zuma that was provided to the defence, Chikane stated that Zuma's liability to Shaik for 2001 was recorded as R1,5-million.

Shaik could not explain to the court how the figure was arrived at, or what Zuma's current indebtedness was.

The case is set to adjourn on Monday until April 4.

With acknowledgements to Sam Sole and the Mail & Guardian.