Had it been an ordinary court case, the air of happiness that reigned at the Bloemfontein Court of Appeal's Room One this week would have been strange.

After all, when last did the defence give evidence before the accusers had presented their case?

Strange too was the apparent lack of interest by National Director of Public Prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka's accusers, who failed to have legal representatives at the hearing, despite promising to do so.

But the Hefer Commission, appointed by President Thabo Mbeki to investigate allegations that Ngcuka was an apartheid spy who was abusing his office to settle old scores with rivals, is no ordinary affair.

Ngcuka joked with members of his staff and his legal team as he witnessed the case against him falling apart in the first week of the hearings. Much of the destruction of the yet to be officially presented case against Ngcuka this week came from thousands of kilometres away in London, where former Eastern Cape lawyer Vanessa Brereton confessed that she was agent RS452.

The newspaper City Press claimed that Ngcuka was a spy operating as agent RS452. Ngcuka's chief accusers, former Transport Minister Mac Maharaj and Department of Foreign Affairs senior official Mo Shaik, now claim they never contended that RS452 was Ngcuka's security police number.

The two - who were absent from the hearings this week as witness after witness testified that there was no way Ngcuka could have been a spy - alleged that Ngcuka was once investigated by the ANC's security and intelligence department for spy activities.

They said he began his spying activities while he was a student at the University of Fort Hare in the 1970s and that his tuition fees were paid for by the then government. They also claimed that, in the 1980s, he had sold out his comrades who were members of an underground ANC unit operating in Durban.

But those said to have been "sold out" by Ngcuka came out in support of him.

Mbulelo Hongo, the man sentenced with Ngcuka to a three-year jail term for refusing to testify against ANC underground operative Patrick Maqubela, told the commission that he had known Ngcuka since their university days and that he did not believe he was a spy.

"Why would he subject himself to eight months in detention and three years in jail if indeed he was a spy?" asked Hongo, in response to a question from the commission's evidence leader Kessie Naidu.

Hongo also dismissed claims that the state had paid for Ngcuka's tuition fees, stating that Ngcuka was a top student who qualified for special bursaries.

Another key witness was Nonceba Duma-Tutu, a Durban businesswoman, whose travel agency had made an application on Ngcuka's behalf for a passport. The passport, issued to Ngcuka when he was in police detention, led to his accusers claiming that his detention had been staged as there was no way the previous government would have issued a passport to a person regarded as a threat to the state.

Duma-Tutu told the commission that she had applied for the passport before Ngcuka was arrested and that she had given it to lawyer Kwenza Mlaba while Ngcuka was still in police custody.

But more damaging to Maharaj and Shaik's case was the evidence given by Maqubela and the Department of Housing's chief director, Litha Jolobe.

The two said they knew who had sold them out in the 1980s and that this person, whom they declined to name, was also known to both Maharaj and Shaik.

Jolobe, who was an ANC guerrilla arrested in Durban during an operation in the 1980s, stunned the commission when he revealed that Maharaj had made about five calls to him in an attempt to get him to help build a case against Ngcuka.

Jolobe claimed that Maharaj had called him "about five minutes" after a senior National Intelligence Agency operative, Ricky Nkondo, had told him to expect a call from an unnamed person. This raises questions about the role of the NIA in the Ngcuka-Zuma saga.

George Bizos, representing the NIA, the Secret Service and the SA Police Service, told of how shocked the NIA had been when the name of one of their operatives was revealed in public as this was in contravention of the law.

These intelligence services have been requested by the commission, on behalf of Maharaj and Shaik, to submit files compiled before 1994 that could prove whether Ngcuka was a spy or not.

Bizos told the commission that it would have to follow "proper procedures" and apply for such protected information to the NIA's director-general, the secretary of defence and the SAPS's national commissioner.

Bizos told the hearing that it would be illegal for anyone to reveal such information without consent from the said officials. "It would also be legitimately open to the security services to seek appropriate relief to prevent unauthorised disclosure by members of former members."

His comment evoked a strong reaction from Naidu and Ngcuka's lawyer, Marumo Moerane, who asked why the intelligence community had not taken action against Shaik, a former NIA agent, who appeared on TV claiming to be holding classified documents. Ngcuka's team will respond in full to Bizos's statement when the commission resumes tomorrow.

With acknowledgements to S'Thembiso Msomi and the Sunday Times.