Jacob Zuma's co-accused in his corruption trial argues in an affidavit that the national directorate of public prosecutions broke an agreement that the Thint company would not be prosecuted as a result of its connection with Durban businessman Schabir Shaik and the former deputy president.

The argument is the nub of the affidavit submitted to the Pietermaritzburg high court on Monday by Pierre Jean Marie Robert Moynot, MD of Thint.

The affidavit details the story of the deal struck between Thint's parent company Thales and the NPA's former director, Bulelani Ngcuka, and former justice minister Penuel Maduna to protect Thint from prosecution over the infamous "encrypted fax". Judge HIlary Squires found the fax major proof that Schabir Shaik had a generally corrupt relationship with Zuma.

Thint is the South African arm of Thales, the French arms and manufacturing company. Thint, represented by Moynot, has been charged (with Zuma), with corruption. Thint was previously charged alongside Shaik, but the charges were dropped at his trial.

Moynot's affidavit forms the basis of Thint's application, in response to the state's application for an adjournment to 2007, that the case against Thint be permanently struck off the roll in terms of its constitutional rights. Alternatively, Thint has requested that the charges be dropped in terms of section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Act ("unreasonable delays").

The affidavit - bolstered by a supplementary affidavit by Christine Guerrier, in-house legal counsel of Thales (France), which was entered into the record on Thursday - details the circumstances that gave rise to a deal surrounding the "encrypted fax", written by Alain Thetard, then Thint's local director.

Moynot said that in April 2004 Robert Driman, Thint's then attorney, Guerrier, Ajay Sooklal, Thint's present attorney, and Moynot, met Maduna and Ngcuka at Maduna's home.

Maduna allegedly told the gathering that the state was not interested in prosecuting Thint or, for that matter Thetard, but that the state's focus was on prosecuting Shaik.

"According to Dr Maduna," Moynot said on Monday, "Thales and Thint were considered by the South African government to be making a useful contribution to the development and improvement of the SA economy through their association with the (Shaik/Thint company) ADS and the furtherance of government's policy on Black Economic Empowerment."

This being the case, Maduna said, according to Moynot, he was prepared to withdraw the charges and the warrants of arrest in relation to Thetard, charged because of the fax.

Moynot said that Ngcuka had said he agreed with Maduna and would withdraw charges against Thetard and Thint if an affidavit were provided by Thetard in which he confirmed that he was the author of the fax.

As a result, Driman had asked Kessie Naidu SC, now acting for Thint, to draw up an agreement with Ngcuka. This was done, Thetard provided the state with the affidavit it had requested, and Ngcuka withdraw charges against Thetard in May 2004.

"Although I was advised that the agreement with Ngcuka did not have the effect of an indemnity against prosecution," Moynot said, "I was confident that Thint would never be re-indicted" because of Maduna's assurances ("He would hardly have encouraged us to expand our business interests ... if he or Ngcuka entertained the slightest intention ... of prosecuting us ..."), and Ngcuka's withdrawal of the warrants of arrest.

"The very fact that the state, represented by Ngcuka, ... required an innocuous and most unhelpful piece of evidence ... in exchange for withdrawal of the charges against (us), is in itself an indication that the charges were withdrawn because the decision was taken by Ngcuka ... on the recommendation of Dr Maduna ... and that (the state)would not charge (us) in the future."

With acknowledgement to Jeremy Gordin and Sunday Argus.