The defence teams of Jacob Zuma and of Thint - the French arms manufacturer and dealer charged with the former deputy president - have not booked any hotel rooms in Pietermaritzburg, where Zuma's July 31 corruption trial is scheduled to be held. Nor are they likely to do so soon.

This is because, although the eyes of the nation have been on Zuma's rape trial, both his defence team and the team defending Thint are aiming to go to court on or before then and suggest to the presiding judge that it is unlikely that either Zuma or Thint could get a free and fair trial.

What should also not come as a surprise - given this week's view by Transvaal Judge President Bernard Ngoepe in Johannesburg that Zuma is entitled in a trial to the most senior judge available - is an application to Vuka Tshabalala, the judge president of KwaZulu-Natal, asking that he set himself down immediately for the corruption trial and stop cogitating on the issue.

In their efforts to show that a fair trial is impossible, defence lawyers will not be suggesting that there is anything wrong with the judges. They will probably be out to show that the way in which the Scorpions and Bulelani Ngcuka, the former chief of the national prosecuting authority, have dealt with Zuma and Thint, has precluded them from getting a fair trial.

Time

In addition, they will be stressing that it has taken an inordinate amount of time for Zuma to have been brought to trial.

The legal teams are operating according to a so-called omnibus, or joint, plan of action, the goal of which is to demonstrate that both Zuma's and Thint's constitutional rights have been so badly ruptured over the last four years that a "fair" trial appears out of the question. Zuma's team is headed by Kemp J Kemp, SC, Thint's team by Kessie Naidu, SC, who was previously on the Zuma legal team, and has in any case acted off and on for Zuma in the past.

The first salvo in the defence strategy was fired in September when Julie Mohamed, a former Zuma attorney, brought a successful action in the Johannesburg High Court against the Scorpions. Judge Ismail Hussain ruled that, pending an appeal, the Scorpions were ordered to return the documents related to Zuma, that they had seized.

Judge Hussain ruled that the search warrants, issued by Bernard Ngoepe, judge president of Transvaal, were irregular, especially in so far as they resulted in a breach of attorney-client privilege, which, the judge said, was close to sacrosanct in the South African legal system, and had even been treated as such by the previous regime.

Early in January, Thint, Pierre Moynot, its managing director, and Bijou Moynot, his wife, brought a similar application, related also to searches by the Scorpions, in the Pretoria high court. This matter is likely to be debated in the Pretoria High Court in the next month or two - and a similar result is expected.

And this week, in the Durban High Court, Judge Noel Hurt set aside all the warrants that had been used for searches of the premises of both Zuma and Michael Hulley, his attorney in Durban.

Challenge

The next step was a move by Thint in December last year to challenge the national prosecuting authority's request, in terms of the international Mutual Legal Cooperation Act, for assistance regarding certain documents held by the Mauritian authorities.

More significantly, this move is likely to be followed soon by a legal challenge by Zuma regarding the statement made in July 2003 by Bulelani Ngcuka, then chief of the NPA, that, although there was a prima facie case against Zuma, the NPA would not prosecute him in connection with the arms deal. And yet, after the successful prosecution of Schabir Shaik, Zuma's former business adviser, the former deputy president was charged.

Ngcuka's statement was also followed by Judge Joos Hefer of the Hefer Commission stating that certain leaks from the NPA's offices had infringed Zuma's constitutional rights, and Lawrence Mushwana, the public protector, saying Zuma's constitutional rights had been abused by Ngcuka's statement about a prima facie case.

Simultaneously, it is understood, the Thint defence team will challenge the behaviour of the NPA on the basis that the NPA agreed to withdraw charges against Thint in return for affidavits from Alain Thetard, the author of the encrypted fax used in the trial against Shaik.

The Thint defence team will argue that the subsequent decision to charge Thint is contrary to the ethical standards expected from public servants.

In effect, it should not be long before both Zuma and Thint are arguing that neither can expect a fair trial.

With acknowledgement to the Sunday Tribune and  Jeremy Gordin