At this stage there is no sign of the original document formalising a revolving-credit agreement between Deputy President Jacob Zuma and Durban businessman Schabir Shaik.

The agreement forms part of Shaik's defence against a charge that there was a generally corrupt relationship between him and Zuma.

A copy *1 of the agreement was produced during the cross-examination of forensic auditor Johan van der Walt.

Yesterday, however, senior special investigator Johan du Plooy testified - provisionally as the last state witness - that Reverend Frank Chikane had informed him that the original agreement had not been lodged with the Presidency, where cabinet ministers must declare their liabilities.

Du Plooy told the court he was unable to find the original agreement in the parliamentary assets register or in the confidential register where ministers declare their interests.

Correspondence about the issue, however, stated that Zuma had declared the loan from Shaik - the question that remains is where the document is.

Earlier, documents expert Marius Rheder said the only way to find out if the document was authentic would be to analyse the original.

After Du Plooy's short evidence, prosecutor Billy Downer said: "I close the state's case. I reserve the right to reopen it for more evidence on the loan agreement."

With acknowledgements to Estelle Ellis and The Star.

*1 Actually a faxed copy, faxed from the Presidency to Shaik.

A faxed copy of a document alone can have no evidentiary value.

This is unlike the situation of the Encrypted Fax. In this case the hand-written original was produced in court, a digital typed version was also produced. The author confirmed the authenticity of the former under oath. The typist confirmed the authenticity of the latter under oath. A handwriting expert and professional forensic investigator further confirmed the authenticity of the former under oath, both in respect of the handwriting and of the paper medium. A computer forensic specialist confirmed the authenticity of the latter under oath. The typist confirmed under oath that the originator signed the typed original and instructed her to fax the document in encrypted form to its stipulated recipients, which she duly did.

The recipients destroyed the faxed copies that they received. The originator destroyed the computer hard disk on which a digital copy was stored. This is to be expected as the record is an incriminating one.

In this case, neither of the parties to the "Loan Agreement" created or kept a copy. This is not to be expected as the record is an benign, even exonerating one. It is also highly unusual as it involves a substantial amount of money and if there was indeed an original, this was meant to be lodged in a place where it would always be difficult to retrieve, even in the most innocent of circumstances.

Should a signed, original Loan Agreement appear at this stage, it should be treated with the forensic respect that it deserves.

Fortunately, the FBI's document forensics laboratory can simply determine whether it was created on one of the parties' PCs in 1999 or somewhere in Downtown Lenasia in 2004 or 2005.

Don't try it - it's sure to make the presiding officer even grumpier.