The troubled multi-billion-rand arms deal could be torpedoed by the Cape High Court after the government missed the deadline to oppose a court action seeking to have it declared null and void.

The government's lawyers failed to file papers opposing the action by Economists Allied for Arms Reduction (Ecaar-SA) by Tuesday afternoon. It is expected that the organisation, which is challenging the validity of the arms deal, will apply on Wednesday to the Cape High Court to have the matter set down for hearing on the basis of its application papers alone.

Ecaar-SA, which says it is bringing a class suit on behalf of the poor of South Africa, based its action mainly on the contention that South Africa cannot afford the arms deal and is buying arms instead of looking after the constitutional rights of its people.

The organisation alleges that the offset business promised as a sweetener for the deal may be just a "scam" by arms dealers.

In his Budget speech recently, Minister of Finance Trevor Manuel indicated that the cost of the deal to buy submarines, fighter aircraft, fighter trainer aircraft, helicopters and corvettes was originally set at R30-billion but that this had now risen to R52,7-billion due to the depreciation of the rand.

But Ecaar-SA has projected the final cost of the deal at closer to R115-billion.

It launched its court action late last year.

In its application to the Cape High Court, Ecaar and its South African chairperson, TerryCrawford-Browne, are citing President Mbeki, Trevor Manuel, Public Protector Selby Baqwa, National Director of Public Prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka, Auditor-General Shauket Fakie and speaker of parliament Frene Ginwala as respondents.

Ecaar's legal attack is based mainly on constitutional grounds and, according to papers filed at court, is brought in the interest of Ecaar and the public and on behalf of all "poor people in South Africa".

According to Crawford-Browne's affidavit, "the arms deal has been mired in controversy because of allegations involving fraud, dishonesty and corruption involving many role players".

He said Ecaar's legal action concerned the "irrationality and accordingly unconstitutionality of the South African government entering into the various constituent parts of the arms deal, and specifically the rationality of the minister of finance's entering into loan agreements and credit guarantees on January 24 2000".

"Various non-governmental organisations, churches and members of civil society raised the fact that such expenditure could not be justified in the light of the fact that South Africa had no discernible enemies," it was stated in papers before court.

Tuesday was the deadline for the government to file opposing papers. It had received a two-week extension, at Manuel's request, while he prepared his Budget speech.

In January, the government indicated it would oppose Ecaar's lawsuit.

"By close of business yesterday we had not received anything," said Crawford-Browne. "We will be writing to the judge-president to get a date for a hearing."

The organisation had waited "long enough".

"We held off our legal action pending the report on possible corruption in the deal. But the government knew about it before the time. They had more than ample time.

"They want to either bluster and bluster, or they are too bewildered, or it is a way to let them off the hook and allow the court to cancel the deal," said Crawford-Browne.