The Democratic Alliance has protested to Speaker Baleka Mbete about the latest sweetheart ruling in favour of Deputy President Jacob Zuma during Parliamentary question time this week.

ANC House chairman Geoff Doidge, in an apparently prepared ruling, said before Zuma answered a question about his Jacob Zuma Education Trust on Wednesday that the question was out of order because it did not relate to Zuma's executive position. He went on, however, to allow Zuma to read a prepared answer, but refused to allow the usual four follow-up questions.

Zuma lauded the work of his trust, saying that in the seven years to 2004 it had helped 5000 children attend primary and secondary schools and 50 more to go to college or university.

He did not refer to allegations at the Shaik trial that education funds donated by former President Nelson Mandela were diverted through the trust to unrelated accounts.

DA Chief Whip Douglas Gibson objected to the ruling at the time and told the Sunday Times later that he had written to Mbete asking her to review and rescind the ruling.

"Mr Doidge was correct to rule that the question was out of order and should not have been put, but it was completely outrageous to allow the deputy president to answer the question, but not to allow any follow ... [It] was completely wrong not to allow the normal parliamentary procedure to be followed," Gibson said.

"Based on evidence at the Shaik trial, the DA would have asked whether the Education Trust was now being used as a conduit to launder funds to pay the deputy president's personal debts, and they knew that was the obvious response."

Gibson said the effect of the ruling was to allow Zuma to deliver "a one-sided puff piece".

Last November, Mbete disallowed a question to Zuma arising out of evidence at the Shaik trial, citing the sub judice rule, which prevents debate that could influence a court.

Gibson argued then that Zuma was not entitled to protection because he was neither a suspect nor a witness in the case. He was overruled and the question was dropped.

As the leader of government business in Parliament, Zuma meets regularly with ANC Whips and other senior officials.

Earlier this year, he urged ANC Whips at a private meeting to harden their scrutiny of state institutions, including the Scorpions investigation unit, which led inquiries into his own role in the arms deal that is at the heart of the Shaik trial.

A special committee of Parliament last year blocked opposition efforts to reopen an inquiry by the Public Protector into former Scorpions boss Bulelani Ngcuka's statement that there was a prima facie case of corruption against Zuma but that he would not be prosecuted.

Only once, in March 2003, has Zuma responded in detail to questions arising out of his alleged involvement with companies bidding for a share of the arms deal. He said then he had no business relationship with Shaik's companies and had never discussed protection for any company or individual from the arms deal investigation.

The Shaik trial is expected to hear this week whether Zuma declared a loan agreement with Shaik as a liability as required under Cabinet rules.

With acknowledgements to Brendan Boyle and the Sunday Times.