Not a single scrap of evidence existed to prove that Deputy President Jacob Zuma knew his financial adviser Schabir Shaik was using his name to advance his business interests, Shaik's trial was told yesterday.

Francois van Zyl SC asked Judge Hilary Squires to rule on the question as he set out closing arguments in the Durban High Court yesterday.

Earlier in the week, lead prosecutor Billy Downer SC had asked the court to convict Shaik of all charges against him - two of corruption and one of fraud.

All the charges had something to do with what the State has termed "corrupt patronage" between Shaik and Zuma.

Downer argued that the state had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Shaik used a scheme of payments to lock Zuma into a corrupt relationship whereby he "could not say no" to requests to help his financial adviser advance his business interests.

But Van Zyl argued that "name-dropping was a common phenomenon" and pointed out to the court that it had never been a crime.

"There is no evidence that Zuma was aware of the fact that Shaik was using his name," Van Zyl said.

Shaik looked more determined than ever as his counsel began his final argument, but admitted that anticipation of an imminent judgment was causing him great stress.

Van Zyl said the evidence before the court contained many aspects that should cast doubt over the state's case of a generally corrupt relationship between Shaik and Zuma.

He further argued that the only thing the evidence showed was that there was a financial relationship between the two.

Van Zyl said Zuma was obviously reluctant to accept Shaik's help, offered to him in his capacity as "father figure and mentor".

Van Zyl also asked the court to rule that a copy of a loan agreement entered into by Shaik and Zuma was admissible and reflected the true state of affairs between the two men.

He pointed out that evidence of Zuma repaying Shaik supported the latter's case that the money advanced to the deputy president was in the form of loans and not corrupt payments.

"It is a strange type of corrupt relationship where the corruptee pays back the corrupter," Van Zyl said. He also argued to the court that Zuma had told parliament of his debt to Shaik.

"A parliamentarian declaring a bribe is unheard of ...," Van Zyl said. "Human nature being what human nature is, it is highly unlikely too."

Even though he said that he would deal with the issue in detail next week, Van Zyl said he was not surprised that Shaik's evidence was less than perfect.

He said that, with the long time span covered by the charges against him, it would be natural for Shaik to "reconstruct and speculate".

Van Zyl also said that the state had to prove that Shaik acted "with the intent to corrupt".

He said that to do this the state had to show that the payments were made with the intention of rewarding or influencing.

"It is submitted that the State failed [to do so]."

The trial continues on Tuesday.

With acknowledgements to Estelle Ellis and The Star.