Deputy President Jacob Zuma faces a stark choice: step down or be forced to leave office.

This was the word from an array of senior ANC MPs, officials and government leaders who spoke to the Sunday Times on condition of anonymity this weekend.

They were reacting to the finding by Judge Hilary Squires that Zuma’s financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, facilitated a bribe for Zuma from an arms company — and that Zuma had been aware of this.

The judge also found that the two men enjoyed a “generally corrupt relationship”, which makes Zuma’s continued presence in government a national embarrassment.

The National Prosecuting Authority held a high-level meeting in Pretoria yesterday to weigh up prosecuting Zuma. One top official said: “Failure to move will place serious credibility doubts on us, but we must be mindful of the impending appeal. This is the serious dilemma that the NPA faces.”

Government and party officials suggested that Zuma was likely to resign or take a leave of absence, possibly within days. They believed it would be very damaging if the NPA decided to charge Zuma while he was still in office.

Party officials are concerned about divisions over Zuma taking on ethnic overtones and want his exit to be as dignified as possible.

A senior government insider said it was now up to Zuma to “limit the damage” done by the verdict.

A party insider added: “People are stunned by the judgment. There is a growing feeling in the movement that a full inquiry into the arms deal may be inevitable because these worms keep creeping out.”

A veteran MP close to Zuma said: “If I were him, I would resign.”

Both Mbeki and Zuma spent yesterday at their official residences in Pretoria, but their aides said no official meeting had been scheduled.

Zuma is, however, expected to address a media briefing today or tomorrow on the judgment.

ANC insiders expect Mbeki to push for a conclusion at or before the ANC’s National General Council meeting in Pretoria at the end of the month.

Mbeki, who returned from the US on Friday, has received a copy of the findings by Judge Squires.

Mbeki’s legal adviser, Mojanku Gumbi, is studying the judgment.

The Department of Justice is also reviewing it to see whether it affects Zuma’s constitutional or legal obligations, including the obligation to declare all assets and income.

Mbeki is withholding comment to allow Zuma to make a public statement, but if he does not comment soon, Mbeki is expected to intervene.

“It might be that after all these considerations, what is required is more a political rather than a legal call,” said one senior government official.

According to the Constitution, Zuma’s future is in Mbeki’s hands. “The President appoints the deputy president and ministers ... and may dismiss them,” it says.

Just days ahead of the verdict, Mbeki asked the ANC’s national executive committee to support strong measures against corrupt public servants.

Senior party officials said the debate in the committee resulted in “a sea change” in the ANC’s attitude to allegations of corruption at all levels of the party.

“It was the President himself who put it on the agenda. He said there is a need to deal with this [corruption] very strongly,” said one member.

A day after the meeting, in a significant hardening of attitude, ANC secretary-general Kgalema Motlanthe announced that MPs convicted of defrauding Parliament in the Travelgate scam would lose their seats.

The ANC had previously refused to say whether convicted MPs would be expelled, saying only that the party’s disciplinary process would kick in once all judicial paths had been exhausted.

One ANC national executive committee member said Zuma’s name had not been mentioned in the discussion, but added: “Everyone knew that no layer was exempted. The Zuma case was not specifically mentioned, but that was clearly the context in which the discussion took place.”

The discussion came two days after Mbeki had told Parliament that even his executive (a term that usually means the Cabinet) was not immune to “the drive for the accumulation of personal wealth at all costs”.

“Of particular importance, of course, is the harm that would be and is caused to the development process by the abuse of state power by members of the executive corruptly to accumulate personal wealth,” Mbeki said.

If Zuma takes leave, he can expect the state to fund any legal costs that might arise out of a prosecution, but an official said his right to legal support could fall away if he resigned.

The government is concerned about the impact of the findings concerning Zuma on the campaign to win debt relief and a doubling of aid to Africa from the G8 group of rich nations at their summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, in July.

However, Zuma’s backing within the ANC remains strong.

ANC Youth League president Fikile Mbalula said the league believed that no one could “be proven guilty without being given an opportunity to answer in court”.

The prosecuting authorities should “either charge him [Zuma] or shut up for the rest of their lives”, he said.

He said Judge Squires’s judgment was “a political matter”.

“First, it was the Scorpions who were supposed to charge him. Now it is an old apartheid Rhodesian judge who comes to the conclusion that by implication the deputy president is guilty,” he said.

The SA Communist Party and Cosatu, which have supported Zuma ever since the corruption allegations against him were made in 2002, say they regard him as innocent since he has not had his day in court.

ANC spokesman Smuts Ngonyama told the Sunday Times that there was no sense of crisis in the ANC over the implications of the Shaik judgment.

“As a country, we should avoid being in this mood of excitement and create a crisis where none exists,” he said.

With acknowledgements to Brendan Boyle, Dominic Mahlangu, S’themibiso Msomi, Sabelo Ndlangisa and the Sunday Times.