The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) reneged on a 2004 deal to drop the prosecution of French arms company Thint in order to pursue its politically driven case against Jacob Zuma, the company alleges in papers filed in the Pietermaritzburg high court this week.

Thint’s southern Africa boss, Pierre Moynot, signalled that the company, charged as Zuma’s co-accused in the sensational corruption trial, would up the political ante by calling NPA boss Vusi Pikoli to the stand.

This will force Pikoli to explain why it was necessary to charge the company soon after the fraud and corruption conviction of Durban businessman Schabir Shaik last year, Moynot says in an affidavit filed on behalf of the company.

“The defence will require (Pikoli) to testify and subject himself to cross-examination concerning: his decision to reinstitute the prosecution against (Thint Pty Ltd), the reasons for his decision to indict the accused at a time when it was clear that much investigations still had to be conducted and that the nature of the investigations and the Shaik Appeal was likely to severely impact on the prosecution and result in an unreasonable delay, the date which he really expects the prosecution to commence,” Moynot says.

Moynot suggests the NPA was motivated to charge the company, against which it dropped charges in October 2004, as a way of getting to Zuma. In his testimony Pikoli will be challenged on “whether the decision to reinstitute the prosecution against (Thint) was not motivated primarily by the consideration that they needed to be joined in order to become a convenient vehicle for the proof of certain evidence against (Zuma)”.

Moynot’s contention dovetails with Zuma’s suggestion in his affidavit that the decision to charge him soon after the Shaik verdict was calculated to lend legal credence to President Thabo Mbeki’s decision to fire him as his deputy.

“I was dismissed as the Deputy President of the Republic of SA as a result of the two charges brought against me — the very charges the prosecution now says they are not in a position to go to trial on. It was obvious that the bringing of the charges would bring me into serious disrepute,” Zuma says.

Complicating matters in the case is a deal struck between former justice minister Penuell Maduna, former NPA boss Bulelani Ngcuka and Thint’s lawyers that charges against the company — which was then a co-accused in the Shaik trial — would be dropped in return for co-operation from Alain Thetard, the former South African director of Thomson CSF, now Thint. Thetard was required to swear to his authorship of the infamous “encrypted fax” incriminating Zuma, Shaik and the company in a bribery deal.

The NPA later dropped charges against Thint when Shaik’s trial began in October 2004.

Moynot contends that the state has never satisfactorily explained its decision later to prosecute the company, and suggests the deal was a ruse to entrap Thetard into incriminating himself.

The NPA reissued a warrant of arrest against Thetard last year, a move that effectively discouraged him from testifying as a defence witness in the Shaik trial.

Both Zuma and Thint have asked the court for a permanent stay of prosecution, arguing that their rights to a fair trial have been irreparably harmed. However, general legal opinion has been that the court grants such relief only in the most “extreme” cases.

Alternatively, Zuma and Thint want the matter struck off the court roll until the state is ready to proceed with prosecution.

Lawyers for all three sides will present oral arguments before judge Herbert Msimang early next month.

With acknowledgement to Vukani Mde, Karima Brown and Business Day Weekender.