Right from the first time the National Prosecuting Authority indicated that it would charge Jacob Zuma with corruption, I was concerned that they would not be able to make it stick.

The authority’s face will be covered with a significant smear of egg, not because Zuma is necessarily innocent, but because of the sheer incompetence of the supposedly fraudulent dealings between him and Schabir Shaik.

Shaik was shown to have attempted to buy influence in the deputy president’s office. But what did Zuma deliver? Absolutely nothing, it would appear. He was unable to influence the choice of defence contractor — and didn’t even seem particularly interested in the arms deal.

He never received the annual R500000 stipend Shaik attempted to negotiate on his behalf. He wrote a letter querying the investigation into the arms deal process (supposedly to try to get it quashed), but did not achieve this.

Yes, he did receive significant financial “donations” from Shaik. But if a fool is prepared to continue doling out money to Zuma and receives nothing in return, Zuma would probably be the bigger fool had he not accepted it. He appears to be financially incompetent and unable to manage his own affairs.

Hence, there exists a strong case for Zuma’s defence. He did nothing which could be shown indisputably to have been corrupt.

Bring on the tax evasion and perjury charges. Far less “impressive”, but easier to make stick. If Zuma claims that Shaik’s deposits were “loans” or “donations”, then he was under an obligation to declare them on his tax return, and to Parliament. This he did not do.

Let us hope that the recent questionable raid by the Scorpions for Zuma’s documents will not lead a judge to rule the additional charges unwarranted.

It will be far easier for Zuma to receive a pardon for tax evasion and perjury than it would for corruption. For tax evasion, he might even get away with a fine.

With acknowledgements to Mark Heaton and the Business Day.