The fraud and corruption trial of Durban businessman Schabir Shaik which started last October ended on Wednesday without any date set for judgment.

Judge Hilary Squires said that contrary to media reports judgment would not happen before May 30 and could even be later, but both the defence and the prosecution would be "advised in good time".

"Like all rivers that eventually reach the sea, we have reached the sea," Squires said at the end of the case. He thanked defence advocate Francois Van Zyl, SC, and prosecutor Billy Downer, SC, for meticulously presenting their cases, for their "sensible co-operation" and "the way you conducted this long trial without personal differences getting in the way."

Downer was first to leave the court, saying "We're still on track.. we did our best as a team." He said he would take a holiday and then it would be back to work.

He was followed by Shaik who, although usually voluble, walked away from reporters saying "after judgment."

Then Van Zyl walked down the steps of the court. Asked how it felt that the trial was finally over he said, smiling: "For us it's never over. Tomorrow you start again with something else."

Shaik was tried on two charges of corruption and one of fraud. The first count was "general corruption" in which the State alleged he used his friendship and "political connectivity" with Zuma to his business advantage in return for financial favours.

Count two of fraud relates to the irregular write-off of money as development costs from the books of his Nkobi group of companies, and later the reversal thereof. This was referred to in court as "creative accounting".

Count three of corruptions alleges that Shaik solicited a bribe of R500 000 a year for Zuma from French arms manufacturer Thomson CSF, in exchange for protection during investigations into alleged irregularities in the country's multi-billion rand arms deal.

Central to this charge is an "encrypted fax" written by Alain Thetard, the head of Thomson's South African operations, which details the agreement. Shaik said the money he requested from the French was a donation for Zuma's RDP education trust fund.

On Wednesday Van Zyl gave the court an alternative explanation. He said there was "a reasonable possibility" that Shaik misrepresented the position to Thetard in order to get the R500 000 per year from Thomson until the African Defence System dividends were paid. Van Zyl said if Shaik had only used Zuma to convince Thetard to pay him, without Zuma's knowledge, then Shaik and Zuma "did not commit the offence in question".

Van Zyl said: "As he [Shaik] could not admit his deceit in evidence he decided to give a false explanation. In these circumstances he should not be convicted simply because he was not truthful with this honourable court".

He questioned what Zuma had been told or what was explained to him at the March 2000 meeting with Shaik and Thetard in Durban.

"What was Zuma told by accused [number] one? That is the whole key to this *1," he said.

On Tuesday Van Zyl told the court that Thetard himself lacked credibility and that he could have made up the bribe agreement to get money from his company for himself.

Van Zyl reminded the court that Shaik had been a conduit for bringing money into and out of the country for the African National Congress during the struggle against apartheid. "He is not someone who is unaware of deceitful ways."

Responding to the defence's final argument, Downer said: "It is surprising and the first time in my experience that the court at this late stage has been asked to speculate on the true version of events." Downer said the focus of the trial was on Shaik not Zuma. "But that does not mean that an examination of Mr Zuma's constitutional duties was not relevant."

With acknowledgements to Wendy Jasson da Costa and Sapa.

*1 No it is not.

The fax has been found to convey the facts, i.e. an executive summary that The Three Donateers conspired to do something. If Zuma was told something different by Shaik, then he should have been subpoenaed by the Defence to say what this was - or he could have come voluntarily.