Now closing arguments between the state and the defence will decide if Shaik is in or out of jail

Deputy President Jacob Zuma on Thursday lost the last opportunity to clear his name in the Schabir Shaik trial when counsel Francois van Zyl closed the defence's case.

This was after Judge Hillary Squires turned down an application by the state to re-open its case and lead new evidence.

As a result, Zuma's name is as badly tarnished as it was before the case began — if not more so.

Despite Shaik's taking the stand in his own defence and explaining his version of their relationship, the awkward questions about the deputy president and his financial adviser remain unanswered.

Shaik, his brother Mo and spin doctors associated with the defence team had repeatedly hinted that Zuma might be brought to court as a defence witness.

Their thesis ran thus: taking the stand would allow Zuma to present his version of events, effectively clearing his name before a court, something he has publicly stated that he wants to do.

At the same time, Zuma's evidence would corroborate Shaik's argument that he had simply bailed out his friend and former commander when he was battling financially but wanted absolutely no payback from him.

Behind-the-scenes negotiations were held between Shaik's team and Zuma's advisers.

Both groups weighed up the positives of his presenting evidence against the indignity of having to face lead prosecutor Billy Downer in court and explain his inability to live within his far from insubstantial means.

On Monday, Dr Zweli Mkhize, the ANC KwaZulu-Natal treasurer and the province's Finance MEC, was called as a defence witness. A close confidant of Zuma, Mkhize had dealings with Shaik both as ANC treasurer and as a trustee of Development Africa, a front organisation set up to channel funds to the party and the Zulu royal house.

Mkhize told the court Shaik had financed the KwaZulu-Natal ANC from 1994. He said he regarded Shaik as "a major contributor to the ANC ... one of the most important," and described him as "generous".

Mkhize confirmed Shaik's assertions that he had given large amounts of money to the ANC, pegging this at around R1-million in May 1999 and adding that another R1-million or so was expected.

Shaik, Mkhize said, had also paid numerous bills for the ANC.

Mkhize said he and Shaik were joint signatories on an account held by Nkobi's Floryn Investments.

Shaik had suggested the ANC use Floryn as an "accounting platform" to track ANC finances and the dormant company was used for this purpose.

Mkhize supported Shaik's claims that Zuma and other ANC leaders had still been under threat of political assassination after the 1994 elections.

Shaik had told the court this was why he had initially rented a "safe house" for Zuma.

Mkhize said reports "suggested that elements in the police ... were threatening to harm individuals". ANC leaders had to be relocated, but the party did not have the money to help them. Individuals like Shaik were approached for donations for this purpose, he said.

Later in his evidence, Mkhize contradicted Shaik's claim that he had repaid the entire R1-million he took from Zuma's account.

The money was part of R2-million deposited by former President Nelson Mandela into Zuma's account and was destined for Development Africa.

Mkhize told the court Shaik was unaware what the money was intended for and used it for other purposes.

He later gave Development Africa four cheques of R250000 each, of which only two were honoured. Mkhize said there was no dispute between Development Africa and Shaik about the R500000 he had failed to repay.

Forensic auditor Greg Johnson was Shaik's other main defence witness this week. He disputed the assertion in the state's KPMG report that Shaik had given Zuma R1.2-million, saying the figure R888000 was a more accurate reflection of the money paid to or on behalf of Zuma by Shaik.

Johnson also argued that the state's claim that the Zuma payments drove the Nkobi Group into the red was incorrect.

However, under cross-examination by Downer, Johnson rather unwillingly conceded that the Zuma payments were not good for Nkobi's financial wellbeing.

On Thursday afternoon, Shaik swaggered down the front steps of the Durban High Court looking like a man well pleased with the world.

Had the state succeeded in obtaining permission to lead new evidence, Downer would have had a new stage from which to punch holes in Shaik's credibility as a witness.

Shaik had earlier told the court he knew nothing about an October 1996 letter from Zuma to Renong chief Halim Saad asking Saad to cut Shaik in on the lucrative Point Waterfront deal. Shaik had been locked out of the deal in favour of the Vulindlela group.

The state claims Zuma went in to bat for him in return for a series of payments from Shaik.

Had Downer won the application, he could have been able to prove that Shaik lied under oath while being cross-examined — or to borrow Judge Squires's words, had been "untruthful".

It would also have supported Downer's earlier assertion that Shaik had written documents sent out in Zuma's name.

Squires ruled that allowing the state to re-open would have both prejudiced Shaik's case and further delayed a trial which he described as "enough to make even the most disciplined stoic weaken".

But despite Thursday's victory, Shaik's defence — presented over several weeks — failed to deliver the "surprises" to the prosecution which he had alluded to before and during the trial.

It also did little to clear the name of Zuma, the man the state claims Shaik bought for collective payments of R1.2-million and the promise of a R1-million bribe from French arms merchant Thomson (now Thint).

With the defence case now closed, Shaik's direct role in the proceedings is over.

Come April 25, when the case resumes, Downer and Van Zyl will present their final closing arguments.

Van Zyl will try to reinforce in Judge Squires's mind the Shaik version of events: that as a loyal and disciplined cadre, he had simply tried to help a man he held in high esteem, and had wanted nothing in return.

Van Zyl will focus on any inconsistencies in the state case and exploit them while at the same time turning any holes he has managed to pick in evidence into major tears.

Downer, for his part, will zoom in on contradictions between Shaik's version and those of his witnesses, using each to paint a picture of an accused with no credibility, who is willing to mislead the court to stay out of jail.

Downer is also likely to exploit the gaps in the defence case created by the fact that Zuma — the only man who could corroborate much of Shaik's version of events — did not have his day in court.

With acknowledgements to Paddy Harper and the Sunday Times.