If ever Jacob Zuma needed his day in court, it is now. Six judges and two assessors, a veritable expert jury, have found the corrupter guilty. Now the question looms larger than ever: can there be a corrupter without a corruptee?

One of the ANC deputy president's cries - before the High Court in Pietermaritzburg rejected repeated false starts by the State - was to be properly heard and openly exonerated. Given this week's drama, and the Supreme Court of Appeal's strengthening of the phrase "generally corrupt relationship" to "sustained corrupt relationship", South Africa's right to know is greater than ever.

No longer can it be a matter of whether the National Prosecuting Authority goes after Zuma again, but how soon.

Zuma's stoic cheerleaders, Cosatu, the ANC Youth League and the Young Communist League, are right when they insist the Shaik jailing does not mean the guilt of their star. But they are wrong when they argue that the Bloemfontein verdict did not boost the chances of recharging Zuma. Were they not listening when prosecutor Billy Downer said: "This is one of the things we were waiting for"?

Put it another way: Imagine the howl, and the lingering stench for Zuma (and the country), if the NPA retreated after the learned judges in Bloemfontein gave them the final thumbs-up on the corrupter.

Is it possible to have a man who gave another money and connived to secure more for him from elsewhere, without the other knowing that he was being sucked into the quicksand of a crooked relationship?

Given his worldliness, could the alleged corruptee not have realised? Did he not know or suspect that there would have to be payback? Had he not heard of the corrupter bandying his name about as he pursued riches? Did he not ponder the price of unearned money?

South Africa deserves answers. And Zuma deserves the chance to show that innocence, to shake off the added suspicion implied by the Bloemfontein decision.

The corrupter and alleged corruptee have a proven money link, one which found correspondents for world media this week describing the Shaik verdict as a blow to Zuma's presidential ambitions.

The Shaik family believe their loved one's dealings with Zuma were out of "love, loyalty and comradeship". They believe, still, in his innocence. Had they said any different, we would have thought less of them.

But a jury of eight, all highly experienced and read in law, pored over the mass of evidence and found Schabir Shaik's acts seriously criminal.

The question now is: did Zuma believe he was receiving money out of love, loyalty and comradeship? And will our courts?

The Zuma camp signalled by its reactions to the Shaik verdict that it will be louder than before when its candidate's matter resumes. It will be more emotional and will remain highly political - Zuma supporters will see to that. So, the next time, prosecutors dare not stumble. Too much is riding on this one. Zuma must be heard and thoroughly tried.

With acknowledgement to Weekend Argus.