Johannesburg - Schabir Shaik's failed defence against two corruption charges on which he was found guilty, is at present being used by the State in its case against Jacob Zuma.

Court documents in which the Scorpions applied for permission to raid the properties of Zuma and his confidantes last week revealed that the State planned to use Shaik's trump cards in his corruption and fraud trail against Zuma in a bid to weaken the former deputy president's case.

This might mean that Shaik, Zuma's former financial adviser, did considerable harm to his "political commissar" when he tried to convince Judge Hilary Squires at the end of last year that there were legitimate explanations for his payments to Zuma and the meetings with French arms company Thales.

These defences were related to the two corruption charges against Shaik, which also appear on Zuma's charge sheet.

In a sworn affidavit that formed part of last week's court documents, Johan du Plooy, the investigating officer, indicated that Zuma might also be charged with money-laundering and fraud and or an infringement of the Revenue Act.

On the first corruption charge - that Shaik over a period of about six years paid R1.2m to or on behalf of Zuma - Shaik, via his advocate Francois van Zyl SC, handed over a "loan agreement" to the court according to which he had loaned Zuma R2m.

But Shaik could hand over only a copy of the alleged agreement, as Zuma had apparently handed the original to parliament's register of members' assets.

Later during the Shaik trial it came to light that the "agreement" was also not in parliament.

Even Julie Mahomed, Zuma's attorney at the time, who allegedly typed the document, could not explain its disappearance.

In his closing argument, prosecutor Billy Downer SC said the "loan agreement" was a ruse - a sentiment shared by Squires in his judgment.

The State now wants to accuse Zuma of fraud and or tax evasion, as the Shaik payments were "corrupt assets" and the "reasonable possibility" existed that Zuma didn't declare them to either the South African Revenue Services (SARS), or parliament, "especially since the payments were loans, according to Shaik's defence," Du Plooy's statement read.

On the second corruption charge - that Zuma agreed to receive R500 000 as a bribe from Thales - Shaik said the many meetings between himself, Zuma and Thales were about a donation to Zuma's education trust.

Squires also dismissed this defence.

Scorpions

In his answer to the Scorpions' 35 questions sent to Zuma in July 2003, the axed deputy president remained silent about such conversations and denied that he had had a meeting with Shaik and Alain Thetard, Thales's former South African chief.

"This was contradictory to Shaik's testimony and diminished the strength and reasonableness of Zuma's denial," said Du Plooy's statement.

The fourth preliminary charge against Zuma - namely money-laundering - also has its roots in Shaik's denial that a "service provider agreement" was created between Thales and his Nkobi group to cover up corrupt payments to Zuma.

Squires found that two of Shaik's companies were indeed guilty of money laundering.

With acknowledgements to Adriaan Basson and the Beeld.