As the trial of Durban businessman Shabir Shaik unfolds, it is obvious that his strategy to tell all from his point of view is creating new headaches for Deputy President Jacob Zuma. The charges against Shaik are sufficiently well founded for Shaik to resort to the high-risk strategy of allowing himself to be questioned in detail about his relationship with Zuma and his assorted business deals.

The rule of thumb in criminal cases is that the defence will avoid putting the accused in the witness box unless it is absolutely necessary. The possibility that he or she will make an error and compound the charges is usually sufficient to prevent the accused from taking the stand unless the situation is serious enough. The very fact that he is prepared to testify underlines the grave way the trial has unfolded for the accused.

Shaik's defence is still in the process of being explained, but it is obvious even now that his testimony, whether wittingly or unwittingly, has severe implications for Zuma. Shaik appears determined to paint a picture of a close and ongoing relationship with Zuma. For example, Shaik has testified that he continues to assist Zuma financially, even after charges were brought, and even after the current case began. He continues to provide financial assistance to Zuma "to this day".

Furthermore, Shaik has testified that he has rolled over a five-year, revolving-loan agreement that was entered into just before Zuma took office as deputy president. Shaik's testimony is that even after Zuma was appointed deputy president, his financial state was parlous.

Judge Hillary Squires - normally even-handed to a fault - was apparently unable to stop himself expressing astonishment at this claim. At one point, Squires thought Shaik must have been mistaken about the period involved, asking him whether he realised the period under discussion was 1999, after Zuma had been made deputy president.

All of this is, to say the least, an embarrassment to Zuma. The case will doubtless continue to generate many more surprises. However, it is not the case itself that primarily concerns us here but its implications for the political transition and for Zuma's political reputation. It seems increasingly obvious Zuma cannot maintain his stoic silence about the testimony emanating from Durban. If he does, the public will have no choice but to assume Shaik's version is the truth. And if it is true that Zuma is still taking money from Shaik, then Zuma had better have a good explanation why is accepting this cash.

The prospect of a politician accepting cash hand-outs from a businessman was considered a sufficient basis to establish the Desai commission. In that case, former Democratic Alliance MEC and fundraiser in Western Cape Leon Mark accepted R450 000 in 2001 from now convicted tax fraud Jurgen Harksen. It is alleged that Zuma accepted more than twice this amount - for his personal account rather for his political party.

Having established this precedent, without an explanation as to why a commission ought not be set up to investigate the payments to Zuma.

It is obvious that during the transition years, businessman providing personal support for returning politicians might have been questionable, but it was understandable. Political figures were suddenly transplanted to SA from exile without the means to provide for themselves. But surely after a decade of freedom and, in Zuma's case, four years of earning a substantial salary as deputy president, this is no longer the case.

Shaik may be using his previous relationship with Zuma to try to provide himself with political cover. If so, then all the more reason to tell the truth. It is fast becoming time for Zuma to set the record straight.

With acknowledgement to the Business Day.