Parliament's ethics committee is not in a position to reopen its inquiry into Deputy President Jacob Zuma because the Shaik case is still sub judice, says parliament's chief legal adviser.

Dr Eshaam Palmer said the fact that Schabir Shaik had asked for leave to appeal meant that the rule - which bars discussion of matters still before a court of law - was still in effect.

Shaik's application for leave to appeal will be heard on July 26.

DA chief whip Douglas Gibson said yesterday that he had lodged a complaint with the Registrar of Members' Interests about Zuma's alleged failure to declare his financial interests and benefits as required by parliament's code of conduct.

This followed Mr Justice Hilary Squires's finding that Shaik and Zuma had a generally corrupt relationship and that a purported interest-bearing loan agreement between them was nothing of the sort.

A non-interest-bearing loan must be declared in terms of the parliamentary Code of Conduct.

Yesterday National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete repudiated comments made by parliament's official spokesman, Luphumzo Kebeni, that she had forwarded the judgment to the ethics committee for it to decide whether to re-open its inquiry into whether Zuma declared his financial interest.

She said this was incorrect.

Advised that the information came from Kebeni, she replied: "Luphumzo must not anticipate me."

Attempts to get clarity on the conflicting statements were unsuccessful. Nor was anyone saying whether Mbete had repudiated the information because of party pressure after news headlines about the matter.

However, some MPs said it would have been highly unlikely that Mbete would have forwarded the judgment and that the correct route would be for a complaint to be lodged with the Registrar of Members' Interests.

Parliament's head of communications, Luzuko Jacobs, could only say last night: "I'm unable to comment on this matter."

Ethics committee chairman Luwellyn Landers could not be reached for comment.

The so-called agreement was relied on by the committee in 2003 to clear Zuma of a complaint that he had failed to declare his financial interests. Among some of the payments to Zuma under scrutiny had been loans totalling over R1 million from Shaik.

However, a document purporting it to be an interest-bearing loan was accepted by the ANC-dominated ethics committee.

Despite questions about its authenticity from some opposition MPs on the committee, Landers said at the time there was "no evidence that contradicts the authenticity of the loan agreements" as the documents provided by Zuma were "valid and correct".

With acknowledgements to Angela Quintal and Cape Argus.