Documents disclosed by the state this week reveal Jacob Zuma's first formal responses in 2003 to the graft allegations against him -- and how some of these now appear threadbare in the face of evidence at the Schabir Shaik trial.

Zuma's written answers to 35 questions from the Scorpions have never been publicised. Delivered in August 2003, they formed part of the material considered by the prosecuting authority in deciding whether to charge him with Shaik. Highlighted by Zuma's responses are:

contradictions between his account of his involvement with Shaik's business affairs and Shaik's account, as well as other evidence at the Shaik trial;

Zuma's denial of the alleged meeting in Durban on March 11 2000, where he allegedly endorsed, in coded form, a request for a bribe;

his vagueness about other meetings with representatives of French company Thomson/Thales; and

his refusal to answer questions about funds he received that were not alleged to be related to the arms deal or the alleged R500 000-a-year bribe. In his statement Zuma contends: "To the best of my knowledge, I have not, and never had, any involvement in any relationship of Mr Shaik … on the one hand, and … any company or entity within the Thomson group."

He says: "I had no involvement whatsoever in any participation by Nkobi [Shaik's company] in the corvette bid."

But the Shaik trial heard extensive evidence, including from Shaik himself, that Zuma intervened when Thomson seemed poised to exclude his Nkobi group as a partner in African Defence Systems (ADS) -- its main South African investment, set to secure a significant portion of the contract to supply corvettes to the navy.

Shaik's version was that Zuma merely assured Thomson that he was black enough to meet empowerment requirements, but the fact of the intervention was not seriously contested.

On his alleged meeting with Thétard on March 11 2000, where Zuma supposedly offered his protection and support for Thomson in exchange for a bribe, Zuma states: "There is no evidence that such a meeting took place, or that I attended such a meeting, or that I solicited such bribe or that Thomson/Thales needed any such protection."

At his trial, Shaik said the meeting took place, but on March 10, but that the context was a donation to Zuma's charitable trust.

In his 2003 statement Zuma argued there was no suggestion Thomson or ADS engaged in any corrupt practice to secure the corvette contract. "There is thus no evidence at all that Thomson/Thales had anything to fear from an investigation into the corvette contract. There is thus no conceivable motive for Thomson/Thales to have solicited or have entertained solicitations for protection against such investigations."

Evidence in the Shaik trial, including from Thomson's representative, Pierre Moynot, suggested the company's conduct in the corvette affair was far more ambiguous.

Zuma also attacked the validity of the encrypted fax as evidence against him, something likely to be central to his trial defence. He states: "The allegation is not that I solicited a bribe in any recognised language; it is claimed that a code had been agreed between Schabir Shaik and Thétard (when, is not clear) … There is no evidence that I was party to any such agreed code or communicated the agreed code to Thétard or, indeed, what the alleged code was."

With acknowledgement to Sam Sole and Mail & Guardian.