I haven’t really been watching the Schabir Shaik corruption trial too closely. But I see the DA is asking a question that must be on many people’s minds: why not try Zuma? Bulelani Ngcuka claimed that there wasn’t enough evidence to indict Zuma, but surely if there’s enough evidence to indict Shaik, there’s enough to indict Zuma, right? I’m not a lawyer, but that logic sounds fairly solid to me.

On the other hand, if Shaik is convicted, wouldn’t that in itself be evidence against Zuma? Maybe the Scorpions are planning to arrest Zuma as soon as they’ve secured a conviction against Shaik, and can make an even stronger case against him?
—UPDATE: What would happen if Shaik is convicted, Zuma is put on trial, and Zuma is acquitted? That would be a rather OJ Simpson-esque situation. The public perception would be that one man (Shaik) had effectively been put on trial twice, found guilty in one, acquitted in the other, but sent to prison nevertheless. Not exactly the sort of thing that inspires confidence in the criminal justice system!