Former deputy president Jacob Zuma alleges that in the eyes of the public he has been tried and convicted along with his former financial adviser Schabir Shaik.

“My sentence was publicly pronounced by the president [Thabo Mbeki] … on 14 June, 2005 ­ when I was dismissed as deputy president of South Africa,” said Zuma.

He said this yesterday in papers filed in the Pietermaritzburg High Court in response to the state’s replying affidavits that seek a postponement of his corruption trial and oppose the matter being struck off the court roll.

The state’s main replying affidavits were made by the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Vusi Pikoli, the former NDPP Bulelani Ngcuka, advocate Leonard McCarthy and Penuel Maduna, the former minister of justice and constitutional development.

In their affidavits, they dismissed all the allegations made by Zuma of a conspiracy to remove him from power and prevent him from becoming the next president of the country.

Reasons were also given by the state as to why an adjournment is necessary.

Zuma faces corruption charges relating to the billion-rand contracts concluded in the late 1990s by the South African government to purchase aircraft and vessels for the South African Air Force and Navy.

He was charged after a judge found that he had a “generally corrupt” relationship with Shaik.

Zuma said that the state has failed to address the issues he raised for a permanent stay of prosecution. He said that the state relied on four grounds when it sought an adjournment. Two of these grounds ­ one pertaining to the legality of search and seizure operations and the other to the state’s request for assistance in Mauritius ­ have fallen away.

He said that the state’s failure to provide a final indictment in the matter, despite five years of investigations, is inexcusable. Zuma added that the state wants the trial to begin when they are ready, which is unacceptable as it leaves his fate hanging in the balance.

Zuma criticised the state for dealing with his case along with his co-accused Thint, represented by Pierre Moynot, saying that his application has nothing to do with theirs.

Referring to Ngcuka’s statement in August 2003 that the state had a prima facie case against Zuma but that their prospects of success were not strong, Zuma said that he was branded a crook who had covered his tracks well and was banished to “political purgatory”.

Zuma said that Ngcuka, with Maduna at his side, publicly discredited him in 2003 and that they could not have done so without a motive, which they have not explained.

He said that despite McCarthy’s claims, there is no substance to the contention that the evidence available to the NPA in June 2005 was any different to that available in August 2003 and the new evidence from Shaik’s trial has not been identified in the papers.

Talking about Pikoli’s visit with Mbeki to Chile on June 9, 2005 before Zuma was fired, he said that Pikoli’s version that he hadn’t discussed him should be rejected.

“The president would hardly have done so if there existed the possibility that following my dismissal, the NDPP would announce that it had not changed its decision not to prosecute me. I find the assertion of no discussions rather improbable,” he said.

Zuma said that should the court grant the state’s adjournment then they would move for lesser relief, which would have the effect of confining the parameters of the trial and ensuring its expeditious completion.

Such relief would relate to:

•a separation of Zuma’s trial from his co-accused;

•a first trial date;

•an order that the prosecution proceed on the present indictment;

•an order that further particulars be provided by a certain date;

•an order that the state must identify and deliver the documents it intends using at the trial and that it may not use additional documentation without the leave of the court;

•an order that the KPMG report must be delivered by a specific date; and

•an order that the state ceases investigations, or an order that, if the state wished to consult with witnesses other than those on its list, it must first be established by the defence whether these are defence witnesses.

With acknowledgements to Sharika Regchand and The Natal Witness.