government saw no need for the Heath Unit to be involved. At the time, Woods said there was no clarity on what it was the "leader of government business" was supposed to do. Under cross-examination he conceded that the director of public prosecutions, the auditor-general and the public protector also wanted Heath excluded. Zuma said that when he was asked in Parliament if the revelations at the Shaik trial were a blot on the moral regeneration programme headed by him, he replied, "not at all, I don't look at it that way. Not at all, honourable members." Squires' judgement The Defence rested its case on 7 April 2005, which was followed by the State's final arguments on 28 April. Judge Squires said that he would not be prepared to give any judgment before 30 May. In his final statements, Judge Squires thanked the defence and the prosecutor for the "meticulous and careful manner" in which they "presented their cases", which he said made the "court's task easier," especially when seen in the light of the difficult and complex nature of the case. The formal part of the trial ended shortly after the defence counsel asked the court to consider the possibility that Shaik had sought a bribe of R500,000 (US$77,000) a year from Thompson-CSF without Zuma's knowledge. The defence stated, however, that this version should only be considered if the court rejected their original argument. Judge Squires reconvened the court on 7 June to deliver his sentence. Describing corruption as a "pervasive and insidious evil," he found that Shaik's actions had been aimed at advancing his business interests through an association with Zuma: "His corporate empire's progress and prosperity was plainly linked to the possibility that Jacob Zuma would finally ascend to the highest political office. What was important to him was the achievement of a large multi-corporate business group ... And the power that goes with that and close association with the greatest in the land. It is precisely in such circumstances that corruption works". Judge Squires also said that he was convinced that Shaik gave Zuma "a sustained level of support" designed to maintain a lifestyle the politician could never have afforded otherwise, and that this was an investment in Zuma's political profile from which Shaik expected to benefit. Judge Squires continued that the payments "were not ... to a low-salaried bureaucrat seduced into temptation," and that the