A mere handful of documents — among them the now notorious encrypted fax allegedly soliciting a R1-million bribe for Deputy President Jacob Zuma — will be the focus of intense legal debate in the Schabir Shaik corruption trial over the next few days.

Of the thousands of pages of documentary evidence presented by the state, only a few will be contested by Shaik's defence team when the trial resumes tomorrow.

On Friday, prosecutor Billy Downer told the Durban High Court that the list of documents the defence would contest had been "whittled down".

Apologising for a 30-minute delay in proceedings while Shaik signed off his acceptance of the rest of the documentation, Downer said that when he had started preparing for the case, it was "as if an elephant was giving birth to a mouse".

"Now it's more like a mouse giving birth to an elephant," Downer said.

Alluding to the encrypted fax in which Thompson-CSF (now Thint) boss Alain Thetard allegedly confirmed Shaik's request on Zuma's behalf for the two bribes of R500000 each, Downer said it was "rather strange" that the defence accepted the admissibility of some documents and not others.

"It is remarkable that in this case, where we had thousands of documents placed before court, there are so few documents that are not admitted [by the defence]," Downer said.

Presenting his heads of argument on admissibility, Downer said the fax was critical in establishing the conspiracy by Thetard, Shaik and Thompson-CSF executives Jean Paul Perrier and Pierre Moynot to bribe Zuma.

Quoting legal precedents using the principle of common purpose — which secured so many political convictions in South Africa in the 1980s — Downer said a statement (or in this case a letter) by one participant in a conspiracy could be used as evidence against another participant if this statement was made in an attempt to further their common goal.

In the case of the encrypted fax, while it was drafted by Thetard, it could be used against Shaik because it was sent as part of the same conspiracy to bribe Zuma in return for his protection and patronage.

Defence counsel Francois van Zyl will argue that the fax, given to the Scorpions by Thetard's former secretary, Sue Delique, is not admissible. He will also argue that its intention was not to secure a bribe for Zuma, but to secure donations from Thompson-CSF to Zuma's Education Trust.

Other contested documents will include the affidavit by David Wilson, an employee of Malaysian company Renong, which implicates Zuma as intervening in the Point Waterfront deal on Shaik's behalf.

Wilson had been due to appear as a state witness but withdrew because of pressure from the Malaysian government not to get involved in the prosecution.

In a letter last October explaining his withdrawal, Wilson said if he gave evidence, it would "suggest that there was endorsement and support of the government of Malaysia for the prosecution and, in particular, the allegations against the Deputy President of South Africa".

"I do not wish to be the source of any embarrassment to the government of Malaysia," Wilson said in the letter.

With acknowledgements to Paddy Harper and the Sunday Times.