It has been six years since the state started investigating former deputy president Jacob Zuma’s involvement in the multibillion-rand arms deal. Now his legal team says enough is enough as it challenges the National Prosecuting Authority’s bid to secure a further postponement of the trial.

The call by Zuma’s legal team for the court to throw out his case hinges on a number of arguments. Notably, Zuma’s legal team feels it has become a matter of human rights.

In his affidavit to the Pietermaritzburg High Court on Monday, Zuma asked the court to refuse the state’s application for an adjournment of his trial until next year. He asked that the court grant a permanent stay of prosecution or that the matter be struck off the roll.

Prof Robin Palmer of the University of KwaZulu-Natal law faculty says it is difficult to speculate on legal outcomes — but a permanent stay of prosecution is a particularly hard ruling to obtain. The defence would have to prove gross negligence and delay on the part of the state.

It may be easier to have the case struck off the roll, but the state would then be free to bring new charges. Usually, it is better for an accused to keep the case as it is, under the control of the court, Palmer says.

Rhodes University lecturer Les Roberts says a permanent stay is a “drastic remedy” that could be resorted to only in special circumstances.

Among the reasons for the delay in bringing its case to court, the state lists the need to wait for the outcome of the search-and-seizure appeals — something that is beyond its control.

Zuma’s court case, which will resume on September 5, has been described by several African National Congress (ANC) leaders as hurting and dividing the party.

Commentators say the case is also part of the reason that President Thabo Mbeki, in his address at the Nelson Mandela Memorial Lecture at the weekend, lashed out at the ANC leadership for infighting. This has been interpreted as a tacit affirmation that the controversy surrounding Zuma, who is the ANC deputy president, has split the party and the tripartite alliance.

The case that Zuma is trying to have struck off the roll focuses on two issues — his allegedly corrupt relationship with convicted businessman Schabir Shaik and an arrangement with Shaik in 2000 and 2001, which allegedly aimed to obtain Zuma’s assistance in concealing corruption in the arms deal.

On the first charge, the state intends to extend the period of the allegedly corrupt relationship between the two to cover the period between 1995 and 2005.

Zuma also faces lesser charges relating to income tax.

Experts argue that the two counts of corruption with which Zuma was charged on June 29 last year are in essence mirror images of counts one and three that Shaik faced during his own trial.

Zuma claims that the investigation is designed to destroy his reputation and ability to play a political role. He says: “Conjecture about me being the next president has, in the last year or two, been persistent and widespread.”

He argues that the state is not in a position to proceed with his case, even though it has had the services of experienced senior prosecutors, advocates, Scorpions investigators and expert forensic accountants.

If the defence were given the same opportunity to prepare for trial and master the documentation — and if the state expands its case further as it has indicated — Zuma says the defence would need an adjournment of five to seven years to prepare.

Zuma argues that further delay will affect his political career, as the term of office for the ANC top structure ends next year and the meeting to determine new leaders takes place towards the end of that year.

The ANC’s senior leadership structure has a “profound bearing” on leadership of the country, Zuma says.

“There was no corruption in the awarding of the arms deal contracts and, indeed, the system was so designed that corruption was not possible,” says Zuma.

Not a single state witness has ever contended that he has acted in an improper manner, Zuma claims.

He says in his affidavit that Mbeki is “ideally suited to depose to the absence of corruption in the arms deal contract award process”.

Mbeki was not on the list of witnesses, nor was there a statement from him.

“I was dismissed as the deputy president of SA as a result of the two charges brought against me, the very charges the prosecution now says they are not in a position to go to trial with,” Zuma says.

With acknowledgment to Edward West and Business Day.