Durban - To line his pockets, Deputy President Jacob Zuma contravened the constitution and chose to serve in "corrupt patronage" with his financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, the high court has been told.

Since October, not a day has passed in Shaik's fraud and corruption trial that Zuma's shadow has not fallen over the proceedings. Yesterday the deputy president, represented by a lone advocate, again took centre-stage as final argument commenced.

In closing argument before Justice Hilary Squires, prosecution leader Billy Downer, SC, said the evidence led had shown Zuma as having agreed to "corrupt patronage" with Shaik, knowing that if he stopped helping Shaik, his personal financial situation would be in jeopardy.

Although the sideswipes at Zuma continued as Downer and his colleague, Anton Steynberg, argued their cases, their portrayal of Shaik was even more scathing.

"It was promised at the beginning of this trial, with apologies to (Latin poet) Virgil, that the prosecution would concern an epic of arms and a man," Downer said.

"The epic has now been traversed as promised. Unfortunately the epic has proven to be anything but heroic. The facts in the present matter more aptly prompt the cry which (Roman philosopher) Cicero uttered... : 'Oh the times, oh the morals!' "

Downer soon drew the battle lines: "It is submitted that Shaik (and his companies) should be convicted as charged on all the charge."

In the end it would come down to what the judge and assessors thought.

"We are very close to each other (on the facts of the case)," said Downer.

"It is just a question of what inference must be drawn," Judge Squires answered.

Downer said it was the state's case, which had been echoed by Shaik, that he had paid Zuma to stay in politics.

The state just took it a step further, Downer explained. It was the prosecution's case that Zuma had helped Shaik to enhance his business.

"It is submitted that in providing assistance to Shaik... Zuma, in contravention of his constitutional duties, at the very least exposed himself to a situation involving the risk of a conflict between his official responsibilities and private interests, and thus acted in neglect of his duties," he said, arguing that this meant that the prosecution had proven the crime of corruption.

Downer spent much time dealing with the makings of what he labelled a "generally corrupt relationship" between Shaik and Zuma.

He argued that the relationship was formed at a time when Zuma was in financial trouble and Shaik had agreed to help.

"This above-mentioned scenario describes a deplorable system of corrupt patronage calculated to maintain Zuma in positions where he was available to further the interests of Shaik and his companies, as he did, and so provide Shaik with the connectivity that Shaik trumpeted as important for achieving business success," Downer said.

He argued to the court that this was a carefully crafted relationship grounded in the philosophy of the Malaysian Bumiputera model, which is also sometimes described as "crony capitalism".

"Shaik envisaged that his companies would be the beneficiary of government favour and assistance, and would in return provide returns for government... The point is that Shaik expected some return from his contributions and payments... ".

Zuma, Downer argued, knew this. "Zuma was aware that his financial fortunes were intertwined with those of (Shaik's company) Nkobi Holdings - the greater Nkobi's good fortune, so too would Shaik's (already slight) inclination to enforce repayment diminish even further... It was in Zuma's private interest to promote Nkobi... ".

Downer argued that the court could not accept that the payments had been made in friendship, especially as the Nkobi group was in financial trouble at the time.

With acknowledgements to Estelle Ellis and the Cape Times.