The fates of Schabir Shaik and Jacob Zuma hang in the balance as judge considers his verdict

As corruption and fraud accused Schabir Shaik left the Durban High Court on Wednesday, after his trial's adjournment, a member of the defence team laughed and said: "See you on judgment day."

The light comment belies the nature of what was perhaps the tensest week in the Nkobi Group boss's trial, which began on Monday, October 11 last year.

While the hype and the heavy security presence of last year were gone, the trial had reached its most crucial phase, with the legal teams summing up their arguments.

Shaik walked away from the court grim-faced, canning his usual interviews with the media and refusing to comment until judgment is delivered — which Judge Hillary Squires says will be only after May 30.

Judge Squires faces perhaps the most important decision of his lengthy career, and certainly the most politically significant so far in post-apartheid South Africa.

Despite the fact that it is Shaik and not Deputy President Jacob Zuma who is on trial, Judge Squires' decision holds the key to the succession to South Africa's presidency.

This may explain why Judge Squires was brought out of retirement for the trial: a younger judge's decision might have been influenced by career considerations.

Should Judge Squires convict Shaik of corruption, it will confirm the state's claim that Zuma was a "corruptee", taking bribes from Shaik in return for using his influence on his financial adviser's behalf.

This will open the possibility of Zuma himself being charged, effectively ending his political career and killing off his bid to become the next president.

Should Shaik walk free, Zuma — whose popularity on the ground remains undiminished by the evidence in court — will remain the frontrunner in the race for the presidency.

Shaik's counsel, Francois van Zyl, told the court the state had failed to prove any of the three charges against Shaik, or the alternative charges.

Prosecutor Billy Downer had not proved any intention to bribe Zuma or any improper act by Zuma on Shaik's behalf.

On the third count, of allegedly soliciting a bribe from French arms dealer Thomson-CSF on Zuma's behalf, Van Zyl argued that the encrypted fax on which the state based its case should not be trusted. "The contents of the encrypted fax is not reliable because the author of the document [Thomson official Alain Thetard] is not reliable and the author of the document could have had other motives why he created the document," he said.

He added that should the court reject Shaik's version that the fax was aimed only at securing a donation for the Jacob Zuma Education Trust, there was a possibility Shaik could have tried to defraud Thetard.

"It's a reasonable possibility, on all the facts, that accused 1 [Shaik] misrepresented the position to Thetard in an effort and an attempt to get Thetard to pay his group and him R500000 a year. In doing that he landed the deputy president in all sorts of problems. One would not expect him to come to court and make a clean breast of this deceit," he said.

He added that had Zuma been involved in a scheme to secure a bribe, he would not have encouraged the investigation into the arms deal in the way he had, right up until November 2000.

"That is strange behaviour for somebody who has been bribed, who has agreed to be bribed and who expects R500000 a year to protect against this very investigation which he is now encouraging," Van Zyl said.

Downer, in his final closing argument, said Shaik's argument around the third charge was not to believed.

"To grasp at a straw of possible salvation at this stage of the trial ... and to seek refuge in a version to which the accused did not testify ... it's untested and it's repugnant. It's self-serving," Downer charged.

Shaik's "mendacity", he said, "is an indication that we cannot rely on his supposed defence."

With acknowledgements to Paddy Harper and the Sunday Times.