The state says it needs more time to complete substantial investigations into the affairs of axed former deputy president Jacob Zuma and French arms company Thint.

Zuma's corruption trial could then be adjourned to some time in the first half of next year if the state gets its way.

That's in terms of papers it submitted to the High Court this week.

However, if Zuma gets his way, the charges against him will be permanently withdrawn.

All eyes therefore will be on the Pietermaritzburg High Court on Monday July 31 when the State will argue before Judge Herbert Msimang that it cannot proceed with the trial now due to reasons beyond its control.

Zuma's lawyer Michael Hulley confirmed that he had been instructed to oppose the adjournment application.

"We are drafting responses and should be ready to file them by Tuesday," he said.

Hulley was reacting to the postponement application filed by Scorpions prosecutors this week.

The judge will have to decide whether or not to grant the adjournment. If he refuses, the charges will have to be withdrawn and Zuma's lawyers are then likely to argue prejudice and ask for a permanent stay of prosecution.

Zuma is presently facing mirror-image charges to those on which his former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison last year.

The state alleges Zuma and Shaik had a generally corrupt relationship and that Shaik facilitated a bribe for Zuma from Thint for his support of their bid for the lucrative arms deal.

But the state wants to expand on these charges and has deemed the indictment presently before court "provisional".

It also seeks to prove that the payments from Shaik to Zuma continued even while Shaik was standing trial and that Zuma committed fraud by not declaring these to parliament, the Cabinet and the Receiver of Revenue.

In the postponement application, investigating officer Johan du Plooy, a senior special investigator with the Directorate of Special Operations (the Scorpions), said the main reasons why the State could not finalise the charges and begin the trial were:

The continuing lack of clarity over the legality of the search and seizure raids conducted at the homes and offices of Thint representatives, Zuma, his lawyers and his associates;

Shaik's pending appeal against his conviction and sentence before the Supreme Court of Appeals; and

An application which still has to be made to get original documents from Mauritius.

It was considered vital that fresh evidence be obtained regarding, among other things, financial dealings between Shaik and Zuma to date. Important new aspects had emerged during Shaik's defence, such as the alleged existence of a so-called revolving loan agreement between Shaik and Zuma.

Regarding "possible events which could influence the final indictment", Du Plooy said Shaik had admitted that a meeting had taken place between him, Zuma and Alain Thetard (of Thint) in March 2000, as reflected in the encrypted fax, but that it had not been to discuss the bribe, as the state alleged, but to discuss "an innocent donation to the Jacob Zuma Education Trust".

But, Du Plooy said, Zuma was on record as stating that he did not attend this meeting at all and this required further investigation.

"To this end, Zuma's official (electronic) diary for that time may shed some light. This was discovered during the search of the Union Buildings, but we have not had access to it, since it is alleged to be classified and sealed."

He said this issue could only be addressed once the appeal in respect of the other searches was settled.

Du Plooy said a "significant proportion" of the 93 000 documents seized in the raids was directly relevant to the investigation but could not yet be used.

This article was originally published on page 1 of Pretoria News on July 21, 2006

With acknowledgements to Tanie Broughton and Independent On Line.