Schabir Shaik's last hopes lay in tatters yesterday as the man who secured a bribe for Jacob Zuma learnt he would be in prison for many years to come.

His last chance of clearing his name, or having his 15-year sentence reduced, vanished when the 10 justices of the Constitutional Court handed down a unanimous verdict, rejecting all his appeals against his fraud and corruption convictions and sentences handed down by Judge Hilary Squires more than two years ago:

Guilty of an ongoing corruption of Zuma over many years - 15 years jail.

Guilty of fraud - three years.

Guilty of soliciting a bribe from an arms company in exchange for Zuma's protection - 15 years.

Judge Squires' judgment and damning verdict about the corrupt relationship between Shaik and Zuma led to President Thabo Mbeki sacking his deputy - and to much of the present furore in the ANC's succession debate.

Judge Squires' verdict was endorsed by five judges of the Supreme Court of Appeal last November.

And yesterday the 10 Constitutional Court justices dismissed Shaik's last appeal, with the judgment read out by Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke.

"An appeal against conviction and sentence does not bear any reasonable prospect of success," the judgment said.

Thus, South Africa's highest court has confirmed that Shaik engaged in the "ongoing corruption" of Zuma.

For Scorpions lead advocate Billy Downer, who led the team that brought down Shaik, the court's refusal to let Shaik appeal against his convictions and sentences has shown "that we are on the right track". He is also leading the investigation into Zuma.

He said he felt "gratified and vindicated" by the court's complete rejection of Shaik's claims of "gross prosecutorial misconduct".

The court was also unconvinced by Shaik's argument that he had received an unfair trial because Zuma and French arms company Thint, from whom he was found to have secured the R500 000 bribe in exchange for Zuma's protection from a potentially damaging arms deal inquiry, were not tried with him.

Shaik's argument that he should have received a lesser sentence because of the discrimination he had suffered under apartheid was also rebuffed by the court.

"Whereas it is clear that poverty, a lack of education, or an unhappy childhood, for example, or years of humiliation and ill treatment could be taken into account as relevant personal circumstances of an offender, one must never lose sight of the fact that millions of people who suffered severely under apartheid have chosen to lead honest lives and to avoid crime, often against many odds," the justices said.

"Any message by sentencing courts that the sad and brutal past of our country is a general excuse or mitigating factor for crime would degrade the noble efforts of millions of previously and presently deprived people to live law-abiding lives under difficult circumstances."

Shaik attempted to explain his failure to raise his "fair trial" complaint in either the KwaZulu Natal High Court or the Supreme Court of Appeal by arguing that he had not had the information available to him to do so.

This information, he contended, had come to light only later, during the state's thwarted bid to prosecute Zuma and Thint for corruption and fraud.

The Constitutional Court rejected Shaik's attempt to hand in the entire court record of the state's case against Zuma and Thint as evidence, saying it found this to be "irrelevant and controvertible".

"We do not agree that Shaik and his companies did not have the information necessary to enable them to raise their constitutional complaints in the High Court and in the Supreme Court of Appeal.

"They were aware that Mr Zuma, Thint and (Thint representative Alain) Thetard were not going to be tried with them.

"Mr Zuma had declined their invitation to testify on their behalf, and Mr Thetard was overseas.

"The available information was therefore available to them to foresee any potential prejudice there might have been to their trial and they should have been in a position to take appropriate action."

In his leave-to-appeal application, Shaik argued that if Zuma had been charged with him, the former deputy president might have been able to provide exonerating evidence that could have explained the "very unique and wholly innocent relationship" that existed between the two men.

But the Constitutional Court found that this argument was "highly speculative".

Shaik did, however, score a small legal victory. The court found that he had a "reasonable prospect of success" in appealing against the confiscation of several of his multimillion-rand assets seized from him on the grounds that they were the proceeds of crime.

With acknowledgements to Karyn Maughan and The Star.