The rape trial of Jacob Zuma, the former deputy president, is threatening to detonate a number of politically-charged bombshells that could throw the country into uproar.

Going by this week's evidence, the first of these bombshells relates to the alleged roles of Ronnie Kasrils, the minister for intelligence, and others, in the 31-year-old complainant's decision to lay a complaint against Zuma on November 4 and her subsequent decision, during the following 18 days, to continue to stick with the complaint.

It is clear from the defence's line of questioning of the complainant, and of her mother on Friday, that the defence will argue at the end of the trial that an "exterior force with an ulterior motive", as one of them called it, could have played a major role in the complainant's decision-making process.

The second bombshell still remains murky, but appears to relate to the whereabouts of the complainant and her mother when both were secluded under police protection from about November 5 until the present.

The defence appears to be attempting to ascertain whether the complainant accompanied Phumzile Malambo-Ngcuka, the deputy president, on her controversial holiday to Dubai at the end of December.

The trial re-started on Monday with Judge Willem van der Merwe on the bench after it was adjourned last month following the recusal of Judge President Bernard Ngoepe, and the non-availability, due to prior "connections" with Zuma, of deputy judges president Jeremiah Shongwe and Phineas Mojapelo.

The first five days of the trial have been focused on the complainant's version of her alleged rape by Zuma, an exploration of her sexual history by the defence, and evidence by, and cross-examination of, her mother.

Zuma has pleaded not guilty to the rape charge and the defence has put his version of the events of November 2/3 - that he and the complainant had consensual sexual intercourse for 15 minutes - to the complainant. She has said Zuma's version is not true.

Having succeeded with an in camera application in terms of section 227 of the criminal procedure act, the defence was given leave to cross-question the complainant about her past sexual history, and Kemp J Kemp, SC, Zuma's lead counsel, put it in detail to the complainant that she had alleged that she had been raped, but never pressed charges, on at least six previous occasions, including three when she was over 16.

Kemp argued that, this being the case, it seemed very unusual that she had opted to press charges against Zuma.

Besides probing her sexual history, Kemp asked the 31-year-old woman at least four times whether she was aware of the political dimensions of having decided to make a complaint against Zuma.

Kemp suggested that she knew "very well" that a rape charge against Zuma would be "sweet music" to the ears of "the anti-Zuma camp". Kemp also repeatedly asked her why she had contacted Kasrils on the day after the alleged rape and what he had said to her.

The complainant replied that she did not consider "politics" at all when she made the complaint, that she had called "uncle Ronnie" Kasrils only to enquire about witness protection, and that Kasrils had told her that she must do as she saw fit about the matter.

She also refused to answer a question dealing with the political implications of what had happened - the only question she refused to answer under cross-examination.

On Friday, Jerome Brauns SC, Zuma's second counsel, asked the complainant's mother, who had joined her daughter in witness protection, whether she knew Kasrils.

She replied that she did because her husband, a well-known ANC leader who was imprisoned on Robben Island at one time with Zuma and was later killed in a car crash in Zimbabwe, "knew (Kasrils) well, was with him on the island ..." . (Kasrils was never imprisoned on Robben Island).

Brauns then asked her how often she spoke to Kasrils and she replied "not often - but I have called him from time to time to wish him Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and so on". She added that she had not spoken to him for a long time.

Brauns then put it to her that, according to phone records, someone had called the intelligence minister's cellphone from her cellphone on November 12 - the day on which the complainant was told by the Sunday Times that it intended running a story about the rape charge.

The complainant's mother said she "had no response" to Brauns' contention.

Earlier Kemp repeatedly asked the complainant who had told her "to lie" on November 12 to The Sunday Times and Weekend Argus about whether she had made a complaint of rape against Zuma.

She replied twice that "one of her (police) minders", a Superintendent Khan, had instructed her to do so. Kemp said an affidavit from Khan, who would be called as a witness, suggested that the decision had been in concert with the complainant.

A puzzling and so far unexplained line of questions from Kemp and Brauns has been repeated queries about how many passports the complainant has and whether she has ever been to Dubai.

On Friday, Kemp asked her to hand over her passport, which she had in her pocket, so that the defence might look at the entry and exit stamps in it. After she did so, the defence asked for an adjournment for about 10 minutes.

The woman told the court that she at one time had three passports - a temporary and permanent passport, as well one procured for her with "the assistance of the government", which she explained was the department of social welfare at which she once worked.

The complainant said she had been to Dubai once only some years ago - "when I was stranded at the airport there for 36 hours". She now had two passports only, she said, her two permanent ones.

"It's no secret," said a senior counsel not connected with the rape trial yesterday, "that one pillar of the defence's strategy, besides the consensual sex defence, is that this trial was set up by people in high places, as Zuma has claimed for a long time.

"But the difficulty is that if the prosecution is smart, and they appear to be, they will not call Kasrils - he has already made an affidavit - so as to avoid him having to go into the witness box."

The counsel said that, if this happened, the defence would also be unlikely to call the minister for intelligence "because, from their point of view, he is a 'hostile' witness".

With acknowledgement to Jeremy Gordin and Sunday Argus.