Should the Pietermaritz-burg High Court grant a State application to postpone the Jacob Zuma corruption trial until next year, Zuma wants it to foot a R3 million bill he will allegedly incur in wasted legal costs.

Yesterday his legal team filed their heads of argument with the court opposing the State's application.

Next Tuesday, the State will go head to head with Zuma and his co-accused, French arms company Thint.

In a 96-page submission, Kemp J Kemp SC sets out reasons and technical argument why Zuma will be prejudiced should Mr Justice Herbert Msimang grant the postponement.

The case resumes on September 5, when the issue is set to be decided.

"Zuma's ability to fund the litigation has also been dramatically affected - a postponement will effectively cost him in the region of R3m at least," Kemp argued.

And in a counter-attack, Kemp asked for a permanent stay of prosecution.

He suggested that should that be refused, the case should be struck off the roll and the bill sent to the State for wasted costs.

He also raised issues relating to Zuma's right to a fair and speedy trial, the prosecution's delay in providing a final indictment, its failure to provide witness statements, documents and the forensic report.

Kemp says the State is not entitled to its adjournment and granting it would prejudice Zuma's rights.

"The outcomes of various other processes are now recognised as no bar to the provision of an indictment and particulars," Kemp argues.

Zuma's legal team says that the State is expected to provide a "radical alteration" of the indictment, which will detail the charges and counsel cannot prepare adequately for trial until the final indictment is provided.

Zuma had a legitimate expectation that his trial would start and finish "without unreasonable delay".

It is also argued that Zuma ought to have been charged as a co-accused alongside his former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, at Shaik's corruption trial in 2003, and has been prejudiced by the State's allegedly "deliberate" failure to do so at that stage.

Zuma's legal team charge that by trying them separately, the State prevented Zuma from obtaining useful evidence (as a co-accused) by cross-examining Shaik and "challenging his (Shaik's) evidence, in order to arrive at the true nature of the relationship between them, as well as the transactions that are alleged to have occurred between them".

It also argues that the State's application for a postponement was misleading. If the reasons given were accurate, the delay would have to be for a number of years.

The State's original arguments supporting its request for a postponement include:

The need for a final forensic accountant's report.

Uncertainty over the legality of search-and-seizure raids on the offices and homes of Zuma, Thint representatives and others.

A pending application to obtain documents from Mauritius (which allegedly prove a meeting between Zuma, Shaik and a Thint representative).

The appeal by Shaik against his conviction and 15-year jail sentence.

The defence says the State has failed to provide witness statements and documents or further particulars.

It says the information provided by the State consists of a hard drive containing 4 million documents and images, a total of 254 000 files. The drive is "virus-riddled and difficult to access".

The KPMG (forensic) report was promised for March, with a final indictment, the legal team says. This deadline was shifted to June 30 and then September 5.

It is pointed out that the arms deal which formed the backdrop of the charges has been under investigation by the prosecution since 1999 and that a specific probe of Zuma's role began in 2001.

The defence cites the announcement in August 2003 by the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Bulelani Ngcuka, that Zuma would not be prosecuted due to lack of evidence to prove his guilt.

It submits that the State must have been in a position to charge Zuma with Shaik on August 25, 2003, and that there is no explanation for its failure to do so.

The State had been challenged to put up the "new evidence" that resulted in Zuma being charged, but "ducked the challenge".

With acknowledgements to the Staff Reporters and Cape Argus.