Cape Town ­ Amid all the sound and fury of African National Congress (ANC) president Jacob Zuma's supporters claiming that the new charges brought against him are politically motivated, there remains an 84-page indictment and a more than 700-item list of allegedly illegal payments that these supporters have yet to refute.

The howls of protest against the indictment, which came just three days after Christmas and a little more than a week after Zuma's election as ANC president, have taken aim at President Thabo Mbeki for using the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for political reasons. There have also been expressions of no confidence in the judiciary despite the fact that in the Zuma fraud and corruption saga, the only significant action by a high court judge has been to strike the matter from the court roll.

Of course, there has also been a ruling from the Supreme Court of Appeal to the effect that the documents seized in raids on Zuma's homes and his lawyers' offices as well as arms deal-related documents in Mauritius were admissible as evidence. This is on appeal by the Zuma camp to the Constitutional Court.

The charges have been expanded to include racketeering, corruption (five counts), money laundering or acquisition, possession or use of proceeds of unlawful activities , and 12 counts of fraud and making false statements in income tax returns.

In the general preamble, the indictment says that during the period it covers, Zuma was a high-ranking official in the provincial executive of KwaZulu-Natal (MEC for economic affairs) and the national government (deputy president) and also held high office in the ruling ANC. It concludes that by virtue of these offices, he was in a position to exercise considerable influence.

It also notes that both the interim constitution and the final constitution prohibited Zuma from taking up other paid employment, or engaging in activities inconsistent with his role as an MEC or as deputy president.

The executive ethics code also imposed on Zuma the "highest ethical standards" and prohibited him from wilfully misleading the legislature and "exposing himself to any situation involving the risk of a conflict between his official responsibilities and his private interests".

In support of the first count of general corruption, the indictment says that Zuma and his jailed former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, along with French arms company Thint Holdings and Shaik's Nkobi Holdings, formed a common purpose to bribe Zuma with an ongoing series of payments and services . The schedule to the indictment shows 783 payments from Shaik and his corporate entities totalling R4,072 m over a period of 10 years from October 1995.

The indictment claims that Shaik's payments to Zuma were larger than the positive cash balance of Nkobi, that they were paid under circumstances where Zuma would have been unable to obtain such funds commercially and outside normal banking practice. It concludes that the interest on the payments made to Zuma alone is "beyond any legitimate means of repayment available" to Zuma.

The specific corruption charge focuses on the allegation that the French arms companies and Shaik "conspired" to pay Zuma R500 000 a year "as a bribe in exchange for accused one's (Zuma's) protection in respect of the investigation into the corvettes part of the arms deal".

The new charge of money laundering relates to the alleged R500 000-a-year bribe from Thint. This is because the money was paid through a circuitous route "of concealing or disguising the nature, source, location, disposition or movement of the said property and the ownership thereof or any interest which anyone may have in respect thereof".

Some of the fraud charges relate to Zuma's claimed failure to declare the payments of more than R3m in his declaration of members' interests to Parliament. The same applies to his declaration required in terms of the Executive Members' Ethics Act, where there is a legal duty on members of the cabinet to declare their interests.

He is also accused of fraud for denying in a reply to a parliamentary question by former Democratic Alliance MP Raenette Taljaard that he had met Shaik and Thint CE Alain Thetard in March 2000. The indictment suggests that the alleged bribe was discussed at this meeting.

The income tax offences relate to an alleged failure to declare the income Zuma was getting from Shaik's payments. It is claimed that for eight years he filed no income tax returns at all and following that they were submitted by Shaik who signed them on behalf of Zuma.

The NPA has also filed a list of 218 witnesses it intends to call when the matter goes to trial by no later than August this year. This means that the trial will be in full swing when the ANC holds conferences to determine who will become MPs after the election next year. Those MPs will elect the next president of SA ­ Zuma or someone else?

With acknowledgements to Wyndham Hartley and Business Day.