Justice Joos Hefer has no plans to call Deputy President Jacob Zuma to testify before him, but, to observers, there are at least six reasons why he should do so.

John Bacon, secretary to Judge Hefer, said yesterday there was no need at the moment for Zuma's testimony.

Yet serious questions remain unanswered after the evidence given by former transport minister Mac Maharaj and Mo Shaik, a former ANC intelligence commander.

These are the two men who are the source of the allegation that National Director of Public Prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka "probably" spied for the apartheid regime.

The most important reason for Zuma to testify is that, if he does not, this would undermine the purpose of the commission and tie the hands of the commissioner - as President Thabo Mbeki and the ANC have in effect done.

On November 11, the president amended, for the second time, the commission's terms of reference, instructing it to examine only the spy claims made by Maharaj and Shaik.

Accompanying the emendation was a note from the presidency saying it was necessary to make it clear that the commission had been necessitated by allegations "made by persons outside the state security services".

Also, in a letter to the Hefer Commission, Frank Chikane, director-general of the President's Office, pointed out that the president had "unfettered access" to the archives of the security services.

The state security services had refused to assist the commission with documentation or evidence.

Chikane's letter implied that the president had investigated the security services' documentation and it was therefore not necessary for the commission to bother to do so.

The ANC has issued two statements saying it is "unnecessary" for Zuma to testify because he does not have records or information "relevant to the work of the commission".

Through their statements, the president and the ANC have placed the commission in a difficult position regarding verification of certain evidence.

The commission has been told, on one hand, that it may not or need not see the security services' records and, on the other, that Zuma cannot be of any help.

In effect, the ANC is telling Judge Hefer: don't call to the witness stand anyone who could verify or refute the allegations with documentary evidence.

"This," an advocate said this week, "represents unacceptable political interference in an independent body supposed to have one goal only - the truth - and also a pre-empting of the actions of the commissioner.

"It should be up to him to decide what other information is required. This could seriously damage the commission's credibility."

Last week Shaik told the commission that, at a diplomatic reception in 2001, Justice Minister Penuell Maduna asked him if he knew about a "spy" investigation into Ngcuka. Shaik told Zuma, his former commander in the ANC intelligence section, about Maduna's question.

Zuma had told him not to discuss the matter or hand over any documentation to Maduna, Shaik told the commission.

He had "distrusted" Maduna's motives, Shaik said.

It is pity that, in cross- examination, Marumo Moerane, SC, appearing for Ngcuka, did not ask Shaik what reason Zuma had given for deciding that he should not co-operate. Nor did Moerane ask Shaik why he distrusted Maduna.

It is extraordinary that the deputy president would tell a relatively junior diplomat not to co-operate with a government figure who is a fellow member of the cabinet and responsible for the administration of justice. Zuma should shed light on this.

In describing the incident with Maduna, Shaik implied that Zuma knew about Shaik's secret - and illegal - database of 888 agents or sources. Did Zuma indeed know about it?

Maharaj and Shaik said the report compiled in 1989 on the Ngcuka investigation had been sent to Zuma in Lusaka.

Shaik said he had not received a reply.

Maharaj also said he had not received a reply and so believed the information was accurate. He nevertheless believed he had to continue trying to make contact with the National Association of Democratic Lawyers, one of the organisations where, Shaik's unit had told Lusaka, Ngcuka was a member and a government agent.

Zuma needs to tell the commission whether he received the report in Lusaka.

Under cross-examination, Shaik asked several times that Zuma be called to confirm whether the report reached him.

Zuma must also say why he did not respond to Maharaj or Shaik about the Ngcuka report.

Maharaj tried to explain in detail to the commission why, as a cabinet minister, he did not oppose Ngcuka's appointment as head of the National Prosecuting Authority in 1998.

Maharaj said he had simply forgotten. Norman Arendse, SC, appearing for Maduna, noted, however, that Maharaj had also said he had "national reconciliation" in mind and that, in any case, Ngcuka had performed his ANC tasks diligently and well. Arendse asked why "national reconciliation" should be a possible motive as Ngcuka was an ANC member.

Zuma needs to tell the commission why he, too, did not question Ngcuka's appointment.

It has been suggested in cross-examination that perhaps the report did not exist in 1989 and was "constructed" by Shaik - and perhaps others - as corruption investigations into Shaik's brother Schabir, Zuma and Maharaj got under way.

Shaik and Maharaj have been deeply loyal to Zuma. Shaik has said he went public, with all the risks of doing so, out of respect for Zuma.

The deputy president owes it to them, as friends and former comrades, to testify about the existence of the report.

More important, he owes it to the country.

Did Mac Maharaj send you a report in 1989/1990 saying Bulelani Ngcuka was probably a spy?

He says that since he didn't get a reply, he assumed you accepted the conclusion of the report. Did you do anything about the report?

Mo Shaik says that in 2001 you ordered him not to give information or documents about the spy allegations to Justice Minister Penuell Maduna. Did you say this?

If so, why did you take this extraordinary step to keep the man responsible for Ngcuka in the dark?

Did you tell Shaik the reason for this order?

Shaik says he distrusted Maduna's motives. Did you? If you did, why?

With acknowledgements to Jeremy Gordin and the Cape Times.