Jacob Zuma and Thint, the local arm of the French arms manufacturer Thales, go into the Pietermaritzburg high court on Monday showing a united front and with all guns blazing.

The Sunday Independent has reliably learned that - rather than merely opposing the state's recent request for an adjournment of the trial - the Zuma and Thint defence teams will ask the presiding judge for a "permanent stay" of prosecution. This would be a complete striking-off of the charges of corruption and fraud against former deputy president Zuma and of corruption against Thint.

They will tell the judge the state's delays have been so "unreasonable", they have compromised their clients' right to fair trial. They are likely to refer to two recent constitutional court cases in which such a stay was given.

The defence teams - Zuma's led by Kemp J Kemp, SC, and Thint's by Kessie Naidu, SC - will request, as an alternative "relief", that the charges be struck off the roll in terms of section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act ("unreasonable delays in trials").

'Unreasonable delays in trials' In terms of this section the charges may be reinstated later - but only if they are "ratified" by a specific certificate issued by the national director of public prosecutions.

As a result of the defence's decision to pursue this strategy, taken only in the past few days, neither defence team had responded by the time of going to print last night to the state's adjournment application. Instead, they jointly resolved to serve voluminous papers on Monday requesting a permanent or conditional striking of the charges.

One legal observer said on Saturday: "War is going to be declared tomorrow by the defence teams. They are not going to come to court like a bunch of lapdogs. No one knows for certain who the judge will be, but if he thinks he is going to be walking into a gentlemanly chat about postponements, he will be mistaken.

"I understand that a number of affidavits are going to be tabled by the defence teams in support of their applications," the observer added. "I believe these are going to reverberate not only in court but throughout the country for a long time."

In another development, it is strongly rumoured that - in line with his decision to keep the identity of the trial judge secret until the trial starts properly, if it ever does - Judge Vuka Tshabalala, the judge president of KwaZulu-Natal, may tomorrow take the bench himself for the preliminary arguments. The trial judge has been mooted as Judge Herbert Qedusizi Msimang, but the judge president has refused to confirm or deny this.

Another spur to the defence's decision to respond aggressively to the state's adjournment application is understood to be an informal notification by the state to the defence in the past few days that, if the defence had not filed a response by today, the state, represented by William "Billy" Downer, SC, and Anton Steynberg, would seek an adjournment on "the adjournment issue" until August 7 and then request a further postponement until the beginning of September.

"The point is," said the observer, "that the state has Schabir Shaik's appeal to deal with on August 21. But you can expect the defence to hammer the state on this issue - arguing that the state cannot be allowed the luxury of continually putting off the Zuma/Thint matter because of the Shaik appeal."

Appearing alongside Zuma tomorrow will be Pierre Moynot, the local managing director of Thint. On July 19 the National Prosecuting Authority filed its intention to apply for an adjournment of tomorrow's trial "to a date in 2007" although the trial date of tomorrow, July 31 2006, was agreed upon by all parties last October. On May 12 the defence teams applied in the Durban high court for the state to be ordered to deliver within 10 days a complete indictment, further particulars and supporting documentation related to the trial.

They said they were unable to prepare for the trial because they did not know what evidence would be led against them, although the Criminal Procedure Act and the constitution specify that an accused is entitled to know the charges, to enable him to meet the case against him.

Judge Phillip Levinsohn, the deputy judge president of KwaZulu-Natal, dismissed this bid by Thint and Zuma, saying the decision on the state's inability to present a full indictment would have to be the responsibility of the trial judge. The state has argued there are a number of reasons why the trial needs to be adjourned until next year. Among them are that all the judgments - two against the state, one in favour - related to the legality of the search warrants used in raids for Zuma documents by the Scorpions are on appeal.

Also, the state had been unable to lay its hands on evidence in Mauritius because of an injunction brought against the Mauritian authorities by the local Thales company.

The state must ask the trial judge to issue a "letter of request" to the Mauritian authorities. Shaik's appeal had been set down in the supreme court of appeal from August 21-25.

In the view of the state, it would be unwise to start the Zuma/Thint trial before the SCA has delivered judgment, especially as the "Shaik appeal involves numerous legal issues that will undoubtedly also be the subject of dispute" in the forthcoming Zuma/Thint trial.

This article was originally published on page 1 of Sunday Independent on July 30, 2006

With acknowledgement to Jeremy Gordin and Independent On Line.