Deputy President Jacob Zuma does not believe his name is being dragged through the mud because of his financial adviser's corruption trial.

He told MPs during a rowdy question time in the National Assembly yesterday, that Schabir Shaik's trial was not a "black spot" on the image of his office or that of the moral regeneration campaign which he heads.

While Zuma is not being tried for corruption after a decision not to prosecute him, he remains a central figure in the trial with his financial affairs dissected in court and his attorneys keeping a watching brief.

Yesterday, the Democratic Alliance tried to force Zuma to shed light on his parliamentary reply in March last year regarding a meeting with Alain Thetard, a director of the French arms company Thales.

The DA's Raenette Taljaard also wanted to know whether Zuma would reconsider his claim to the parliamentary ethics committee that payments he received via Shaik were interest-bearing loans.

A KPMG report submitted by the State in the Shaik trial contradicts this.

National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete in a letter to Taljaard said yesterday that the question was out of order in terms of the National Assembly's rule 67.

Known as the sub judice rule, it states that "no member shall refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending".

The DA, using a legalistic interpretation, argues that Zuma is not an accused or a witness in the trial and that there is no judicial decision pending.

DA chief whip Douglas Gibson urged that the Assembly rule be interpreted in the light of the Constitution's freedom of expression clause and a court precedent that "the sub judice rule" be applied in a more limited way.

"There is no reason why a self-imposed rule should be applied so much more restrictively than that of the Constitutional Court."

Gibson told the House that Mbete was effectively denying Zuma the opportunity to clear his name.

"Today provides the perfect opportunity for him to tell the public the facts without in any way affecting the outcome of the Shaik trial, to which he is not a party."

Idasa's Judith February said yesterday she believed Mbete had acted correctly and that the replies sought by Taljaard were intrinsic to the trial.

Zuma was in an invidious position, she said. "He can't do in Parliament what he's not done in a court."

February said the DA had jumped the gun and should rather wait for the trial to be concluded.

During question time, Mbete rejected Gibson's appeal that she reconsider her ruling.

It led to interjections from the DA benches, including from Mike Waters who shouted "it's a cover-up", while others howled "it's a whitewash" and "skande".

ANC chief whip Mbulelo Goniwe objected and Mbete duly asked MPs to desist from unparliamentary behaviour and language.

Then Paul Ditshetelo of the UCDP succeeded where the DA failed. He managed to slip in a question in relation to Zuma's heading of the moral regeneration campaign.

"In the light of what is going on right now, would you regard the Schabir Shaik trial as a black spot on the image of your office, especially the moral regeneration programme?" he asked Zuma.

To applause from the government benches, Zuma replied: "Not at all."

DA MP Willem Doman tried a similar tactic.

He got as far as "in view of the fact that your integrity and lifestyle is being seriously impugned in the High Court on a daily basis ...", when Mbete interrupted.

She reminded him that no reference to the trial could be made.

Doman, however, would not let up.

"Honourable Deputy President, in the light of your recent problems, do you not think it would be appropriate for you to lay aside the burden of this moral regeneration programme until the matter before the court has been resolved one way or another?"

To howls of protest from ANC MPs, Mbete promptly ruled that question out of order - which resulted in Gibson accusing her being inconsistent in her rulings.

Zuma sat back in his bench and smiled broadly.

With acknowledgements to Angela Quintal and the Pretoria News.