Schabir Shaik's looming criminal appeal could prove to be the most politically significant court case heard this year.

Should Jacob Zuma's former financial adviser successfully challenge his conviction for fraud and corruption, the state's pending case against the former deputy president will fall flat.

Shaik's legal team - senior advocates Jeremy Gauntlett and Francois van Zyl - will argue that Zuma was wholly innocent of any of the corrupt practices for which Shaik was convicted. And they have hinted that Shaik tricked Zuma into meeting with Alain Thethard, then a representative of the French arms company with whom Zuma now faces corruption charges.

During Shaik's trial, the state alleged that Zuma was knowingly involved in Shaik's solicitation of a R250 000 bribe from arms company Thint (then known as Thomsom CSF Africa), in exchange for Zuma agreeing to protect the company from a potentially damaging inquiry into the controversial arms deal. This money, the state argued, was part of a planned R500 000 per year which would be paid to Zuma for his support.

But Shaik's lawyers have argued that the state failed to prove this beyond reasonable doubt. "If Shaik had merely used Zuma to convince Thethard to pay him R500 000 per year ... without Zuma's knowledge, Zuma and Shaik did not commit the (corruption offence) in question," they argued, adding that Shaik "may however have committed a fraud against Thethard".

Given the deep friendship Shaik shared with Zuma, it would "not have been an insurmountable problem" for Shaik to convince Zuma to use the code word which would indicate to Thethard that he agreed to the deal, Shaik's lawyers added.

During his trial, Shaik claimed he and Zuma had met with Thethard on March 10, 2000 to discuss a possible charitable donation, but this explanation was rejected by Kwazulu-Natal Judge Hillary Squires.

Now Shaik's lawyers have suggested that Shaik's friendship with Zuma may have motivated him to lie under oath about the way in which he had misused his friend's name and profile to secure the money.

They further argue that it was unlikely that Zuma would have publicly supported an investigation into the arms deal, as he did after political and media commentators expressed concern over alleged corruption in the deal, if he had been a knowing participant.

"Zuma's actions after March 10, 2000 fit in with such a situation - that he did not know that he was supposed to have been bribed and that he had to protect Thomsom against the arms deal investigation and support them in future projects ... It is a fact that the investigations proceeded....

"Zuma also sent his attorney to Paris. One of his main concerns being whether Shaik had used his name to get money from Thomsom," they stated.

In his judgment against Shaik, Judge Squires identified four key episodes which he found were "examples of interventions by Zuma to protect, assist or further Shaik's business interests" in exchange for payments.

These episodes included Zuma's efforts to arrange a meeting between a British businessman and then Minister of Transport Steve Tshwete and his alleged punting of one of Shaik's businesses as the ideal partner for an eco-tourism school.

But, examining each episode one by one, Gauntlett and Van Zyl argue that: "Despite all the documents seized from Shaik and his companies - and the huge investigation conducted by the State in this matter, the State could not show a single instance in which Zuma used or attempted to use any decision-making powers he might have had... to influence the award of any contract or tender or any other government work to Shaik or his companies".

Referring to numerous payments Shaik made to Zuma, most of which Shaik has admitted to making, Gauntlett and Van Zyl also argue that Squires "erred" in not accepting that the payments - estimated by Shaik to amount to R880 000 - were loans and gifts made out of friendship. Judge Squires was wrong to reject Shaik's evidence that the payments were made to assist Zuma financially, after he confided to

Shaik that "he was in dire financial straits and considered leaving politics".

They also suggested that Zuma's financial woes had originated from his efforts to broker peace in Kwazulu-Natal during the 1990s, which ultimately resulted in him being caught in a "debt trap".

"Shaik was of the view that Zuma's continued involvement in politics in KZN was important for peace in the region. "As a businessman in the region, that was of paramount importance to him. Zuma was also a close friend and comrade. Against this background he decided to assist Zuma financially."

Shaik's appeal will be heard between August 21 and 25.

With acknowledgement to Karyn Maughan and Sunday Argus.