Early in Schabir Shaik's corruption and fraud trial, Judge Hillary Squires stated that it was Shaik and not his former boss and comrade, Deputy President Jacob Zuma, who was on trial.

This, from a strictly legal perspective, is true. But throughout the 14 weeks of court hearings, Zuma's name has become inexorably linked with Shaik's.

A key aspect of the state's case is that the two had a generally corrupt relationship: that Shaik was the corrupter and Zuma the corruptee. Zuma has been accused of protecting Shaik, of acting as his hired gun in the business arena to muscle out competitors and of being Shaik's kept man.

These accusations have yet to be proved, but the reality is that the name of the man who until recently was almost guaranteed to become the next President of this country has become synonymous with dubious business practices and with abuse of political office in return for hard cash.

This week his reputation took an even harder knock. Judge Squires ruled that both the encrypted fax soliciting a R1-million bribe for Zuma and an affidavit outlining how he fronted Shaik's attempt to intimidate his way into the massive Point Waterfront deal are now admissible as evidence.

Still, the judge has not in any way ruled that Zuma is guilty of any offence.

But his remarks on the admissibility of the encrypted fax were remarkable. He said: "It [the fax] is reporting the successful conclusion of the common purpose ... It seems unarguably to be the final step in the accomplishment of an agreement to pay Zuma the money indicated in exchange for his influence to protect and further [French arms dealer] Thomson's interests."

Is it a case of chickens coming home to roost for Zuma?

The deputy president has declared his desire to have his day in court to clear his name. He has, at the same time, exhausted several other channels — including the office of the Public Protector — in trying to do so.

Tomorrow, the defence opens its case, with Shaik preparing to take the witness stand. It is our view that this presents Zuma with an opportunity to translate his words into action and tell the world just what took place between him and Shaik.

Large tracts of Shaik's version of events can be corroborated by Zuma and Zuma alone. There is nothing stopping him — if, as he protests, his hands are clean — from taking the witness stand in defence of the man who has admitted spending R1.2-million to keep him in office.

Whether the defence calls him or not, the onus rests on Zuma to do the honourable thing and voluntarily take the witness stand while there is still time. Putting on a brave face and relying on the partisan support of a pocket of his ANC loyalists is not going to help his cause.

Judge Squires must subpoena Zuma if he fails to voluntarily come forward to clear his name in public.

With acknowledgement to the Sunday Times.