A potentially explosive standoff is developing between Jacob Zuma and the Zondo inquiry – as the commission charged with investigating state capture continues to seek the former president’s assurance that he will appear before it in less than a month.The commission has the power to compel Zuma to testify through a subpoena but has instead chosen to “invite” the former president to “give his side of the story” to the evidence led thus far, in hearings scheduled for July 15-19.Zuma’s attorney, Daniel Mantsha, has, however, asked acting inquiry secretary Peter Pedlar to explain under which of the inquiry’s rules Zuma is being asked to testify.He has also reiterated that Zuma believed the inquiry had become “politicised” and had concerns about its impartiality.Mantsha has stressed that any suggestion that Zuma was unwilling to co-operate with the commission was unfounded, but accused inquiry chair deputy judge president Raymond Zondo of unfairly singling him out for mention as someone he wanted to hear evidence from.He has further accused Pedlar of making veiled threats about Zuma.Zuma maintains there is not one shred of evidence that implicates him in corruption or wrongdoing, and has repeatedly questioned whether state capture actually exists.Zondo had previously asked him to respond to evidence given by former ANC MP Vytjie Mentor and ex-government communications head Themba Maseko.Both Maseko and Mentor testified that Zuma was aware of unlawful efforts by the Gupta family to influence or pressurise them to do the family’s bidding.Former finance minister Nhlanhla Nene linked his shock December 2015 axing by Zuma to Zuma’s unhappiness over his resistance to a R1-trillion nuclear deal with Russia.Zuma in 2019 told Business Day that he continued to support such a deal, which he is adamant would not have been the financial suicide predicted by analysts and multiple Treasury officials, but would have saved SA from its ongoing energy crisis.Most recently, former Bosasa COO Angelo Agrizzi detailed how the controversial facilities management company – implicated in multibillionrand tender rigging – allegedly made large cash payments to the Jacob Zuma Education Trust and sponsored a lavish birthday party for the then president.While former SAA chair Dudu Myeni has applied to cross-examine Agrizzi over this evidence, Zuma has not.Pedlar has now told Mantsha that it was inevitable that Zuma would be specifically referenced in the course of the inquiry’s work, and mentioned by Zondo.“We point out that the terms of reference of this commission which your client signed when he was still president single out certain people for special mention. Those people include your client.“Furthermore, a number of witnesses have mentioned your client. Also, your client was the head of state during either the years or some of the years when it is alleged that the state was captured . . .“It is also not clear to the chairperson what the basis is for your client’s view that, because the chairperson may have mentioned your client’s name in regard to the work of the commission, your client should characterise that as ‘this politicisation of a judicial process’ and find it ‘unfortunate and deeply disturbing’.”Pedlar has pointed out that Zondo had also asked President Cyril Ramaphosa to provide evidence – in relation to evidence about Bosasa.“The chairperson also asked President Ramaphosa to furnish an affidavit on some issue and he agreed to do so.“Furthermore, President Ramaphosa has told the chairperson that he will appear before the commission,” Pedlar wrote to Mantsha.“This was after the chairperson had informed him that it would be important that he do so in due course as he was the deputy president ... during some of the years during which it is alleged that acts of state capture occurred.”Mantsha slammed this statement as “really petty and irrelevant”. He has not said outright that Zuma would not agree to the inquiry’s invitation to appear before Zondo, but is adamant he wants to know what the evidence leaders intend to ask him.“We find it unfair the commission expects our client ... to simply present himself without being apprised of the specific questions and issues in respect of which you require him to answer to the commission.“For our client to fully and meaningfully assist the commission, he would need to be apprised of the specific areas and questions. This will obviously enable our client to properly prepare and collate documentation.”