Johannesburg: Prosecution boss Vusi Pikoli announced yesterday that the decision to charge Jacob Zuma was as a result of Judge Hilary Squires's convicting Schabir Shaik of fraud and corruption.

During Shaik's trial, political commentators described Zuma as an "elephant" who sat in court because - although he was not physically there - his presence in the courtroom was overwhelming.

It appears the evidence used to convict Shaik, Zuma's financial adviser, will form the basis of the state's case against Zuma. Many commentators thought Zuma might escape being implicated, but the former deputy president's name was littered throughout Judge Squires's judgment. In fact, the judge had made "positive findings" against Zuma - even going so far as to declare that Zuma and Shaik had enjoyed a "generally corrupt" relationship.

He also found that in all reasonable probability, Zuma knew about the infamous encrypted fax - which set out details of a bribe between the French arms company Thomson and the deputy president.

In the first count of corruption against Shaik, the state had argued successfully that from October 1995 to September 2002, Shaik made 238 payments for Zuma's benefit. The money that was handed over - R1.3m - was paid to Zuma to get him to use his name and political influence to benefit Shaik's business enterprises.

Judge Squires pointed to four incidents where Zuma intervened to assist Shaik's business interests. These included Zuma promoting Nkobi Holdings, Shaik's company, as the preferred BEE partner for the multimillion-rand Point development in Durban; offering his signature in support of an ecotourism school with the implied condition that Shaik be the one to help; and resolving the impasse when Thomson excluded Shaik from benefiting from the arms deal.

"This clearly shows... a readiness in both Shaik to turn to Zuma for his help, and Zuma's readiness to give it," the judge said.

Based on Shaik's conviction, Zuma will face a tough fight to escape culpability if the same evidence is led and the presiding judge comes to the same conclusions that Judge Squires drew.

Convicting Shaik on the first count of corruption, Judge Squires found that the evidence made the case of corruption against Shaik "not just convincing in total, it is really overwhelming".

On the second count of corruption, Zuma was found to have agreed, through an encrypted fax, to protect and promote the interests of Thomson in return for the payment of R500 000 each year.

Shaik's defence team had argued that what was set out in the fax was not about a bribe but a donation to Zuma's Education Trust. But this was rejected by the court.

Squires ruled: "We are amply satisfied that the cumulative effect of the evidence establishes to the necessary degree and beyond a reasonable doubt that this was the means whereby money was to come from Thomson for the benefit of Zuma, as arranged in the meeting that is recorded in the encrypted fax."

Zuma insisted on his day in court. Now, he will have it. However, if found guilty he could be spending the next 15 years behind bars - with his financial adviser.

With acknowledgements to Jonathan Ancer and the Cape Times.