The State was not entitled to another postponement of the Jacob Zuma case because it was infringing his constitutional right to a speedy trial, his defence said.

Kemp J Kemp SC was arguing in the Pietermaritzburg High Court against a bid by the State to put the trial off until some time in 2007.

Zuma is charged with corruption and fraud, and co-accused Thint, the local arm of the French arms maker Thales, has been charged with corruption.

"Imagine," Kemp suggested to Mr Justice Herbert Msimang, "if we came to court and said we were just not ready to plead for 15 months.

"Yet the State believes it has the right to ask continually for postponements be-cause it is simply 'not ready'. This is not the way a constitutional democracy works. It is destructive of (Zuma's) constitutional right to be tried as fast as is reasonably possible."

Kemp said an analysis of the State's changing reasons for requesting postponements over the last year or so demonstrated that the application for yet another postponement had not been made in good faith.

The trial resumed again yesterday after a single day of proceedings on July 31.

On that day the State applied for a postponement until 2007 and the defence teams of both accused filed a counter-application that the charges be struck off the roll, either temporarily or permanently.

The judge ruled that all parties submit written argument on the issues and return to court yesterday.

Yesterday Judge Msimang, sitting with two assessors, said he would deal with the postponement issue first.

Wim Trengove, SC, for the State, said that the main reason it sought a postponement was because there were unresolved court cases relating to raids by the Scorpions in August last year on the premises of Zuma and his attorneys.

Since the legality of the search warrants issued for these raids was either the subject of court cases or negotiation, Trengove said, the State was unsure which of the documents seized could be submitted in the present trial.

Trengove said the State also wanted to wait until the the appeal of former Zuma financial adviser Schabir Shaik before the Supreme Court of Appeal - from September 25 to 29 - had been completed.

Important legal issues would be tested during the appeal.

Trengove asked Billy Downer SC, who led the pro-secution against Shaik and will do so in the trial of Zuma and Thint, to list some of the issues for the court.

Downer mentioned the admissibility of documentation, interpretation of hear-say evidence and the conflation during the Shaik trial of "old" and "new" legal definitions of corruption.

Kemp said it was re-markable that Downer could list issues that would have a bearing on the Zuma/Thint trial - "and yet more than a year after Zuma has been charged, we cannot defend ourselves because we still know nothing about the charges."

"In any case," interjected Judge Msimang, "I do not understand the relevance of the Shaik appeal.

"It may be months before a verdict in the appeal is delivered."

"There is no indictment and no particulars," Kemp said.

"Why, then, was Zuma charged? These charges should be struck off the roll. The State should get its house in order, complete all outstanding business, and then decide whether it wants to lay charges against Zuma,"he said.

With acknowledgement to Jeremy Gordin and Cape Argus.