It will be back to the hard benches of the humid courtroom of the Durban High Court and its moody air conditioner on Monday for Mr Justice Hilary Squires and his assessors after Schabir Shaik's trial adjourned for the holidays last year.

And it will be back to the witness box for forensic auditor Johan van der Walt - who spent 16 days giving evidence - for some more questions.

He is expected to be followed by former Scorpion advocate Gerda Ferreira.

There is bound to be usual bout of confident handshakes and smiles preceding the resumption of the trial.

The State, led by advocate Billy Downer SC and his team, will call their final witnesses. The legal battles over which documents are admissible will be fought. However long this takes, it will most probably determine the length of the rest of the trial.

Up to now Shaik has asserted that the State has misinterpreted the financial relationship between him and Deputy President Jacob Zuma. He claims the payments he made to Zuma were loans made in friendship. The only reason he did not ask for interest, Shaik said, was is that it was contrary to his religious beliefs.

It is all set out in a revolving credit agreement, Shaik explained. He also denied allegations of fraud, saying that money was mistakenly written off in his company's books but it was later fixed.

To allegations that he was involved in soliciting a bribe from French arms company Thomson for Zuma, he answered that he knew nothing.

Shaik is facing three charges. The first is of corruption. The State says that Shaik paid Zuma R1.2 million to further a "general corrupt relationship between them".

It was this charge that up to now led the most interesting evidence in the trail, which - let's just come out and say it - had its moments of excruciating boredom.

The second charge is one of fraud. The State says that Shaik had more than R1m written off.

This money was owed to companies in the Nkobi group through which he allegedly made payments to Zuma.

The write-off meant that it disappeared from Nkobi's books. Shaik said it was a mistake and he got his auditors to fix it in subsequent financial years.

Van der Walt said it did not matter that it was fixed, it is still a crime.

You can fix the amounts, but not the irregularity, the forensic auditor explained.

The third charge against him, one of corruption, is bound to trigger the most heated arguments in this part of the trial. The State says Shaik solicited a bribe from Thomson for Zuma. Zuma agreed to protect Thomson in return.

Shaik says he knows nothing of a fax which allegedly contains this information. Advocate Francois van Zyl SC, for Shaik, is expected to argue that it is not admissible as an exhibit against his client.

With acknowledgements to Estelle Ellis and the Cape Argus.

With acknowledgements to Estelle Ellis and the Cape Argus.