In an ironic twist in the Jacob Zuma fraud and corruption case in Pietermaritzburg, state advocate Billy Downer found himself arguing on Thursday in favour of a "fair and speedy trial" for the accused.

Downer said it appeared the defence now favoured an "indefinite delay" while the case was struck off the roll pending the finalisation of a host of related litigation.

He urged Judge Herbert Msimang not to grant the defence request, saying the trial was in the public interest, and that in the interests of a speedy and fair trial for the accused, it would not be the correct course of action.

He urged the court instead to grant the state's request for time to finalise its revised indictment based on "new evidence" contained in its 500-page KPMG forensic accountants' report.

Msimang adjourned the case until September 20 for judgment on the application for postponement.

The prosecution team made use of a final opportunity to hit back at defence accusations.

Downer said, far from the state having done an "about-turn", it was the defence that had changed its tactics.

"First the defence said that we went to trial too late. Now they say we are going to trial too early... it doesn't make any sense," said Downer, responding to the defence complaint that it could not be expected to finalise its preparations for trial within five months, even if the state delivers on its promise to give them a revised indictment on October 15.

Their initial opposition to the application for a postponement was that any undue delay would render the trial unfair.

And the issue of broken promises came under the spotlight again with Downer shooting down defence accusations that the state could not be trusted to keep its promises.

Downer called the accusations "unnecessary and offensive, to put it bluntly".

He said the state had never promised the defence an indictment by March, but had said it would "endeavour" to give the defence one by then.

This was not possible owing to difficulties that had arisen, and the state had kept the defence fully informed of these developments.

Msimang offered the state a reprieve yesterday when he told Downer to "forget about" accusations that the state was guilty of contempt of court for making use of documents that were ruled to have been illegally obtained to compile its new forensic report.

"Things got a bit carried away yesterday (Wednesday)... Just forget about it," Msimang said.

He said the important question really was whether the state had a reasonable expectation that the disputed evidence would be available to it by the time the case came to trial, if an adjournment was granted.

Downer had presented documentation in support of his contention that the order for the return of the illegally-seized documents was effectively suspended once the prosecution had noted an appeal against the findings.

This allowed the state to make use of the documents pending final outcome of the dispute, he argued.

The state claimed that it was "reasonably confident" that present settlement negotiations over the disputed documents would succeed.

Downer said the state would be ready to start with the trial early in 2007, if it was given the chance to amend and serve its new indictment.

He said the state accepted that the accused had suffered social and other prejudice due to the charges facing them, but said this was "normal" and beyond the state's control.

This article was originally published on page 2 of The Mercury on September 08, 2006

With acknowledgements to Ingrid Oellermann and Independent On Line.