As calls for a political solution to Jacob Zuma’s legal woes grow, I am reminded of the comments of a senior African National Congress (ANC) leader: “We are going to mobilise the masses against the continuation of this trial and the bourgeoisie will be the first to say make this ( trial) go away.”

And so it has come to pass. Members of the business community are among the leading proponents of the push for a political solution to end the more than seven-year legal standoff between the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the man who is going to be SA’s next president. Jerry Vilakazi from Business Unity SA last week joined others, such as Sipho Pityana, who have argued that Zuma’s continued prosecution is not in the interest of the country. They argue that the trial is bad for business (read profit) and investor confidence and that the protagonists should come to an arrangement. This view is gaining currency in the business community.

That business is pushing for a settlement hardly comes as a surprise. After all, this crowd only dumped apartheid when it became too expensive, which makes nonsense of the argument that the fight against corruption is central to creating investor confidence and economic growth. If that were true, how does one account for Angola recording growth of 17%, ensuring untold millions for multinational diamond and oil companies, while the country has not had an election in 16 years?

Profit rather than principle drives many who claim to have the interests of the country at heart. Arguments about the need to uphold the rule of law as a prerequisite for a functioning democracy is often just code for entrenching existing economic relations.

Which is not to say that the call for a political solution in Zuma’s case should not be interrogated. Several options are being floated, including an arms deal amnesty and enacting legislation that seeks to prevent a sitting president from being prosecuted.

Earlier indications, however, point to a third option which calls for the NPA to review its decision to prosecute Zuma. This idea has been floated by Mo Shaik and the South African Communist Party. Their argument rests on a particular interpretation of the context in which Zuma’s relationship with Schabir Shaik developed and the consequent mishandling of the corruption case by the prosecuting authority.

That Bulelani Ngcuka erred in the manner in which he dealt with the Zuma matter, and the fact that the NPA erred when it failed to charge Zuma together with Shaik are now moot points. The train of events set in motion as a result of those mistakes in part explains why the Zuma matter has become a political rather than a legal question . Moreover the relationship between Zuma and his former financial adviser, which forms the basis of the state’s corruption trial, echoes that of many an ANC leader and financial benefactor.

In fact the relationship between leading ANC figures and rich patrons predates the ANC’s exile days. Very few ANC leaders who returned from exile had more than the clothes on their backs when they returned, yet those same people are today among our dollar millionaires, and in some cases billionaires. Just how did they amass such wealth in this short period of time?

That Shaik used Zuma’s name and his association with the ANC president to get ahead in business is a fact acknowledged by the Shaik family. Yet many rightly ask how what Schabir Shaik did is any different from former ANC presidential spokesman Smuts Ngonyama using his proximity to power to facilitate the sale of Telkom shares to the Orlyfunt consortium.

To date the NPA — known for its deal- making approach to unlocking difficult cases — has been bullish about its case against Zuma. But the times are changing and maybe the prospects of a settlement between the NPA and Zuma is not as out of the question as many would like to believe.

Brown is political editor.

With acknowledgements to Karima Brown and Business Day.