Judge Hillary Squires’ judgment looks set to be a political bestseller, if the reactions of some of the actors in the drama that has engulfed SA since October last year are anything to go by.

Deputy President Jacob Zuma said he would study the judgment before commenting.

National Prosecutions Director Vusi Pikoli said he would examine it before deciding whether to charge Zuma.

The African National Congress (ANC), the South African Communist Party (SACP) and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) said they, too, would read the judgment before issuing a considered response.

Everyone, it seems, wants to study the judgment.

But Zuma, Pikoli and the ANC are unlikely to require reading aids when going through the judgment.

The judge’s report is so meticulous and thorough that none of the parties can possibly be at a loss as to what to do.

Squires did not mince his words or fudge the issues: Zuma and Schabir Shaik had a “generally corrupt relationship”; Shaik had no hesitation in asking for Zuma’s help and Zuma had no hesitation in obliging.

Squires’ conviction of Shaik was as emphatic as his comments on Zuma’s involvement in Shaik’s corruption were damning.

The judgment shatters the arguments put forward by former justice minister Penuell Maduna and former national prosecutions head Bulelani Ngcuka that while they had prima facie evidence of corruption by Zuma, they did not think it was strong enough to secure a conviction.

Pikoli, Ngcuka’s successor, now has more than enough evidence to take Zuma to court, something Zuma has been calling for since October.

The only factor that could possibly delay Pikoli’s decision on whether to charge Zuma is his certain knowledge of what the implications of such a move would be.

But Pikoli is not the only one who must consider possible ramifications that extend beyond his remit.

The guilty verdict seems to have thrown the ANC, Cosatu and the SACP into a funk, raising questions over whether the tripartite alliance was taken by surprise by the guilty verdict.

The ANC and its allies, not to mention the Zuma camp, seemingly did not devise strategies to deal with a guilty verdict.

The Zuma camp was hardest hit, with Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi ­ who has described Zuma’s bid for the presidency as an “unstoppable tsunami” ­ said to be “devastated”.

The hardest blow for the Zuma camp appears to have been Squires’ rejection of Zuma’s explanation ­ presented to court during the trial by his lawyer Julekha Mohamed ­ that there was a loan agreement between Zuma and Shaik which was later lost.

However, Zuma’s backers look set to challenge the verdict by calling the entire legal system into question. They are reportedly already putting final touches to arguments portraying the verdict as a political move and suggesting Zuma is the victim of a witchhunt.

They contend that Zuma’s political opponents were committed to using Shaik to discredit their man in the court of public opinion. This, they claim, is underscored by the fact that Zuma has yet to be charged for any wrongdoing.

They say the judge played politics instead of delivering justice when he bought into the prosecution’s argument. *1

However, it was not only Zuma’s camp which was caught off guard. The ANC as a whole seems to have been caught napping.

The party’s statement in reaction to Shaik’s conviction makes no mention of the political implications for the second most powerful man in the ANC ­ unlike its alliance partners, Cosatu and the SACP, who pointed out that it was Shaik and not Zuma who had been found guilty.

The absence of both President Thabo Mbeki and Zuma at the time the judgment was delivered also signals deep divisions.

Mbeki left the job of communicating government’s view on the judgment to its chief spin doctor Joel Netshitenzhe, who cautioned against pointing fingers at the deputy president.

As to guessing Mbeki’s view on the issue, it depends very much on who one speaks to.

Some analysts suggest Mbeki was keen not to be seen to be interfering in the process, but others took a more cynical view that the outcome suited Mbeki well given his opposition to Zuma’s presidential ambitions.

With acknowledgements to the Business Day.

*1   This is prima facie a contempt of court.

This judgment probably sets a standard in the quality of evidence assessment and reasoned findings and conclusions in a criminal case.

It probably will be a hard act to follow. Viva.