While thousands of Jacob Zuma supporters ululated outside the Pietermaritzburg High Court yesterday after Judge Herbert Msimang struck his corruption case off the roll, legal experts warned that the former deputy president’s victory was hollow as the state still had the option of recharging him.

Msimang refused the state’s application for a postponement in the case against Zuma and French arms manufacturer Thint as he found there was an unreasonable delay by the state.

When the state indicated it was unable to proceed, Msimang struck the case off the roll.

Zuma told thousands of well-wishers outside the court: “I have been to this court before without being charged and we were ready to be prosecuted on July 31. The state said it was not ready and we opposed their application for a postponement.”

The state expressed disappointment with yesterday’s decision and has vowed it will bring the matter to trial when various issues delaying the trial have been resolved.

Stephen Tuson of Wits University’s law department says this was not an acquittal on merits and was simply a removal of the case from the court roll.

“The state is open to recharge Zuma and will presumably do so when ready,” he said. This was because section 342a of the Criminal Procedure Act gives a presiding officer various options when a request for a postponement is made.

He said a judge could refuse a postponement if he found there was an unreasonable delay on the part of the prosecution. “It’s a temporary victory for the defence and it is by no means a final victory for Zuma.”

This sentiment is echoed by Adv Frank Stanley of the Independent Advocates of SA, who says the prosecution could still proceed with the case and have Zuma re-arrested.

Prof Robin Palmer of the University of KwaZulu-Natal says there is no case.

“The case will only happen once the state knows about the outcome of the appeals,” he said.

He was referring to two appeals launched by the National Prosecuting Authority against two judgments relating to the search-and-seizure warrants granted by Judge-President Bernard Ngoepe last year.

The Durban High Court set aside the search-and-seizure warrants regarding the home of Zuma and his attorney, Michael Hulley, while the Johannesburg High Court set aside the search and seizure of documents relating to Zuma’s other lawyer, Julekha Mahomed. The state has appealed in both matters.

Zuma’s former financial adviser, Durban businessman Schabir Shaik, is also appealing in the Supreme Court of Appeal against his convictions on fraud and corruption charges.

“Appeals might take some time and they will give guidance on what the state can and cannot use,” said Palmer.

He was referring to the contested contents of the KPMG forensic report, in which some of the documents used in the compilation of the report are part of the contested appeals made by Hulley and Mahomed.

Palmer said the court would no longer hear the case against Zuma and there was therefore no need to hear his application for a stay of prosecution. But if the state decided to recharge Zuma and Thint next year, Palmer said Zuma might apply for the stay of prosecution.

This was because the trial might affect his chances of contesting the December 2007 elections of the leadership of the African National Congress, of which he is deputy president.

Zuma was fired as deputy president of the country after Shaik was convicted of fraud and corruption in June last year.

The then new national director of prosecutions, Vusi Pikoli, charged Zuma with corruption later that month.

Zuma appeared in the Durban Magistrate’s Court in October last year, where the matter was set down for hearing on July 31 this year.

When the state realised in May that it would not be ready for the trial in July, it wrote a letter to the defence asking that the case be postponed to a later date.

This request was refused by both Zuma and Thint.

With acknowledgement to Ernest Mabuza and Business Day.