On December 28, the national prosecuting authority (NPA) served an indictment on Jacob Zuma in Johannesburg, though Zuma was known to be at Nkandla, his rural homestead, celebrating Christmas.

Zuma was indicted, along with Thales (known here as Thint), a French arms manufacturer, on charges of racketeering, corruption, fraud, and money laundering. This took place a scant two weeks after Zuma was elected president of the ANC, the country's ruling party.

I must note that this country virtually shuts down during the Christmas/New Year period, as we do in Europe in August. Certainly, all government offices and the courts are closed.

Second, for 13 years it has been ANC practice that the party president becomes the president of the republic if the ANC wins the national elections. For the foreseeable future the ANC will win national elections.

The only other candidate for the ANC presidency was Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, who opted to oppose Zuma, although he (Mbeki) is constitutionally precluded from a third term as president of the country.

The election took place at the ANC's annual conference just three weeks ago. The behaviour of the 4 000 delegates and the election result were extraordinary. The delegates showed in no uncertain terms that they wanted Zuma as president and humiliated Mbeki and the senior officials who comprise the ANC's national executive committee (NEC).

Regarding the charges against Zuma, which he will be required to answer on August 4, all flow from Zuma's relationship with a Durban entrepreneur, Schabir Shaik, sentenced in the Durban high court in June 2005 to 15 years' jail for corruption and fraud.

According to the judgment, Shaik was involved in a corrupt relationship with Zuma. He asked Zuma, a senior government official, to do certain things in return for which he gave Zuma money. As a result, Mbeki sacked Zuma from the deputy presidency of the Republic and the NPA charged Zuma with corruption and fraud.

Trying to uncover more evidence of questionable payments to Zuma, the Scorpions, the executive arm of the NPA, raided the premises of Zuma, his attorneys, and the offices of Thint, towards the end of 2005. The raids were legally challenged by Zuma, so the documents seized could not be used when Zuma came to trial in September 2006.

Judge Herbert Q Msimang consequently said the Scorpions were clearly not ready to present a case against Zuma and he struck the matter off the roll.

2. The political context:

The president of the ANC is someone whom Mbeki and his coterie clearly do not want in that position, presaging a situation in which there may be destructive conflict, for the remaining 15 months until the next national elections, between "the two centres of power" - the government, on the one hand, and the party, on the other.

Most importantly, the future president of the country has been indicted some six months before the ANC will finalise its list for the 2009 national elections. Will Zuma be number one on the list yet be on trial for racketeering? Will he have been convicted before the 2009 elections?

3. Two questions:

Why was Zuma charged now - why not charge him next week, when the country returns to business? Flowing from this, who was the driving force behind the indictment?

It is a mystery why Zuma was charged just after Christmas and before New Year. Perhaps the Scorpions had not wanted to take action before Polokwane lest this be used against them in the trial.

But perhaps they wanted to deliver the indictment before the first NEC meeting, scheduled for January 7, and the ANC's leader's inaugural speech, scheduled for January 12. Then why not serve the indictment on January 4?

Perhaps it was simply malicious, raising the question of who the driving force was. Zuma has contended that Mbeki and some around him have kept the fire fuelled.

It has been alleged that Mbeki discussed the matter with Vusi Pikoli, the (now suspended) national director of public prosecutions (NDPP), while they were on a trip to Chile in 2005.

This has been denied. But why then did Mbeki fire Zuma before Shaik's trial went on appeal? Mbeki could have suspended him.

Similarly, Mokotedi Mpshe, the acting NDPP, said last week that there had been no talks with the presidency and that, in any case, Leonard McCarthy, the Scorpions chief and acting head of the NPA, had taken the decision to serve the new indictment on Zuma.

But if Mbeki has nothing to do with the NPA, why did he suspend Pikoli last year, apparently for seeking a warrant against Jackie Selebi, the national commissioner of police? Are we really to believe that so hands-on an operator as Mbeki would not know that the new president of the ANC was about to be re-charged?

4. Conclusion:

With the indictment having been served, there is no way out for Zuma other than to appear in court.

He can, and probably will, apply for a permanent stay of charges against him, arguing that his rights to a fair trial have obviously been infringed over the last three years. But which judge would grant that application? *1

And, if it is refused, we shall have "the future president" standing trial and perhaps even being found guilty.

Everyone appears to have painted himself into a corner.

This is so much the case, this is so vexed a situation, that I find it impossible to end this report with my usual heading, "Prospects".

I request therefore that I be transferred to another country or be granted leave until mid-2009 *2.

With acknowledgements to Jeremy Gordin and Sunday Independent.