To line his own pocket, Deputy President Jacob Zuma contravened the constitution and chose to serve in "corrupt patronage" with his financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, the Durban High Court has heard.

Since October 2004, not a day has passed in Shaik's fraud and corruption trial that Zuma's shadow has not fallen over the proceedings. On Monday the deputy president's role once again took centre stage as final argument commenced.

As he began his closing argument before Judge Hilary Squires, prosecution leader Billy Downer SC told the court that the evidence led in the trial showed Zuma to have agreed to "corrupt patronage" with Shaik, knowing that if he stopped helping Shaik, his own financial situation would be in jeopardy.

And even though the sideswipes at Zuma continued as Downer and his colleague Anton Steynberg progressed, the picture they painted of Shaik was more scathing.

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

In the end it would come down to what Judge Squires and his two assessors thought.

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

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

Downer said it was the state's case - echoed by Shaik himself - 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 proved the crime of corruption.

Downer then spent a great deal of the rest of the day traversing the makings of what he labelled a "general corrupt relationship" between Shaik and Zuma.

He said it was their case 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.

"The point is that Shaik expected some return from his contributions and payments."

And Zuma knew this, Downer argued.

"Zuma was aware that his financial fortunes were intertwined with those of (Shaik's company) Nkobi Holdings... 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.

The trial continues.

With acknowledgements to Estelle Ellis and The Star.