It was with a promise that he would only be a phone call away that forensic auditor Johan van der Walt left the trial of Durban businessman Schabir Shaik.

For 17 days, the auditor occupied the witness stand and made Shaik's counsel, Francois van Zyl SC, fight over every inch of his report.

Van der Walt said that if Shaik charged Deputy President Jacob Zuma interest by the day, in terms of a revolving credit agreement, Zuma would have to use most of his pension to repay his debts.

"Not even banks charge interest like that," Van Zyl fired back.

Shaik has pleaded not guilty to two charges of corruption and one of fraud.

In general, Van Zyl accused Van der Walt of being a biased witness. Van der Walt denied it.

Van Zyl also accused Van der Walt of leaving out information, such as money paid back to Shaik by Zuma. Van der Walt denied this.

Van Zyl produced a revolving credit agreement between Zuma and Shaik, making it clear that the money deal the State says was part of a general corrupt relationship, was above board.

Van der Walt said that he had not found this document in his review, but indicated that it still did not change his conclusion that Zuma had received a benefit from Shaik. He also told the court that if two other acknowledgements of debt signed by Zuma were accepted, it would mean that Zuma had, at the very least, saved on interest as no interest had been charged in terms of this agreement *1.

Van Zyl explained that his client would say that the State's suspicions concerning correspondence between him and officials of French arms company Thomson were without foundation *2.

In re-examination the leader of the prosecution, advocate Billy Downer SC, asked Van der Walt if he had found the original copy of a controversial service provider agreement among the documents seized by the State.

The State alleges that the document was a way to cover up a bribe, but Shaik says it was an agreement to deliver a service and be paid for it.

"No, I have checked it again. I did not," Van der Walt said.

With acknowledgements to Estelle Ellis and Cape Argus.

*1 Not only an undue (unlawful) benefit, but totally inconsistent - some "loan agreements" were interest bearing (prime rate plus 2%), others were not (0%).

Simplistic Law of Suspicious Prima Facie Evidence Reversed I
*2 Beyond a doubt is it reasonable to be suspicious that a "donation" request by means of pre-arranged encoded declaration and confirmed by means of an internal encrypted fax, is indeed not related to a donation.