Lead prosecutor Billy Downer SC explained to the Durban High Court this morning why he was emphasising Deputy President Jacob Zuma’s role in the ”corrupt patronage” with his financial adviser businessman Schabir Shaik.

“You have emphasised Zuma’s role a number of times, I am not really concerned with that,” Judge Hilary Squires told him.

Downer explained that even though Zuma had not been charged, the court had to seek the reason why he was prepared to contravene his constitutional duties to help Shaik.

“The answer is a very serious one… he was paid,” he said.

Downer argued the same considerations applied as to why Shaik risked so much for the sake of friendship.

“The answer is that he knew the effects of his payment were that Zuma could not refuse to help him.”

Downer handed over part of the prosecution’s argument to Advocate Anton Steynberg who told the court that it was clear from the instances where Zuma had helped Shaik that the two of them had developed and followed the same modus operandi throughout.

Closing argument in Shaik’s trial started yesterday. With a little Latin, some dramatic flair and a no-holds barred attitude, the State asked the court to convict Shaik, of corruption and fraud.

But first, the State asked the court in nicely couched legalese to find that Shaik was a very, very bad witness.

As Downer handed his pages of written argument to the court, he added a list of reasons why the court should not believe Shaik’s statements that he did nothing wrong.

Shaik is charged with corruption and fraud, but has pleaded not guilty.

Downer gave examples to prove his argument that Shaik’s evidence was riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies: Shaik contradicted his plea explanation to the court.

He contradicted himself.

He contradicted documentary evidence.

He contradicted instructions he had given to his counsel, Francois van Zyl SC.

He showed a lack of candour and was obstinate.

He contradicted defence witnesses.

He failed to make concessions.

And then Downer moved on to what lawyers call inconsistencies – a sin considered to be a little less bad than a contradiction.

Downer pointed out to the court that Shaik’s evidence was inconsistent with documentary evidence and inconsistent with instructions to counsel.

Earlier in the day a projection of the words “Case Number CC27/04 S vs Shaik and others. State’s argument on the merits”, greeted Shaik as he entered the court.

Downer then formally handed his written argument and its 20 annexures to Judge Squires.

The trial continues.

With acknowledgements to Estelle Ellis and the Cape Argus.