Who has former judge and head of the Heath Investigating Unit, Willem Heath, been advising? Jacob Zuma. Many are shocked. We asked him:

The public used to think of you as "Number One Corruption Buster". Have you swapped sides?

No, I haven't. But I do want to see that justice is done. If this case goes down in history as a precedent for delays, we are in trouble. People complain if a case has been pending for six months or two years. Mr Zuma's case has gone on for eight years. At the end of this, you need to look at the merits of the prosecution and the merits of the defence, but also the public interest. The big picture. It's going to have such far-reaching effect, having a precedent of an eight-year prosecution.

Zuma's innocent until proven guilty.

Of course.

But isn't he morally compromised by Shaik's conviction?

Well, he is. But if he had been joined as an accused, as he had asked all along, then he would have had a chance to defend himself. The State has on purpose decided not to join him as an accused. That's the injustice of the whole issue.

You're assisting a morally compromised individual.

Well, "compromised" means that their integrity is highly questionable. In a new dispensation, in our constitution, there are all sorts of presumptions, including remaining innocent until proven guilty. Unless we are going to maintain the fight for the preservation of those provisions, the constitution means nothing. When I was still practicing as an advocate, if there was a clear indication that he was guilty, then I would have advised him to plead guilty. But if you look at all the delays and at all the changes to the indictment, then I cannot say that he is guilty.

All prosecuting authorities are chronically short-staffed. Why not assist them instead?

Well, if they'd approached me, then I would have given them my expertise.

Some people allege that Mr Zuma has used every delaying tactic in the book. Have you not aided him in that?

The first time that he took action was after the search and seizure of his house and his attorney in Johannesburg and Durban. Historically, you cannot allow the State to attach the confidential information of your private legal counsel. That was just in defence of what had occurred.

In 2005, he was again indicted by the prosecution, but they were not ready to proceed. In 2006 they again said they were not ready. In the Mauritian case, he had to defend the action that had already been taken. Those were the only cases in which he had taken the initiative.

In the other cases, such as this appeal to the Constitutional Court, it's an appeal following another action.

So he's not been playing delaying tactics?

That is one allegation that is without any foundation.

Do you believe he is innocent?

I believe he is innocent, because there is no reason to believe that he is guilty. When I was investigating the arms deal, there were no allegations against him at that time *1.

Do you believe that there are other people who were guilty of corruption?

I firmly believe that.

Could there be winnable cases against them?

There could be. But you're not going to get the names out of me.

Was Mr Mbeki clean?

They will claim defamation damages from me if I answer that.

So the answer cannot be yes.

It's neither.

Was Mr Modise corrupt? He has passed away - you can't defame him.

I cannot answer that.

Do you hope to work with Mr Zuma if he becomes president?

No, I don't entertain such a hope. I like my independence.