Defence teams for former deputy president Jacob Zuma and French arms manufacturer Thint yesterday pushed for the corruption case against them to be struck from the roll as they questioned the state’s motivation for requesting a postponement until next year.

The status of a KPMG forensic report that was prepared to sketch the relationship between Zuma, his former financial adviser Schabir Shaik and Shaik’s Nkobi group also came under question in the Pietermaritzburg High Court as it appeared the state had used some documents that were under dispute.

Counsel for Zuma Kemp Kemp accused the state of infringing upon Zuma’s constitutional rights to a fair trial and said the state had engineered the situation it found itself in.

Kemp said once Zuma saw that the state would not be in a position to start the case on July 31, Zuma felt the case could be unbearable and undue. He said one of the reasons a postponement would be unbearable to Zuma was the coming elections for the leadership of the African National Congress, of which Zuma is deputy president.

“Our planning was to have this matter finished by the end of this year,” Kemp said. He said as things stood, Zuma found himself in the same situation he was in 15 months after being charged: without an indictment.

Kemp said the reason Zuma brought an application challenging the search and seizure of documents at his home and at the offices of his lawyer, Michael Hulley, last year was to question the unlawful conduct of the prosecution. Kemp said the delay was therefore not Zuma’s fault.

Kemp said Zuma had incurred costs because of the conduct of the prosecution. “Two months of lost time and R3m in legal costs. There’s no real remedy,” he said.

Kemp said the KPMG forensic report contained all documents that were previously used in the Shaik criminal matter and documents that were seized during the raids in Zuma’s house and Hulley’s office last year. Some of these documents are still the subject of an appeal lodged by the National Prosecuting Authority.

Counsel for Thint Kessie Naidu asked the court whether there was any reasonable expectation that the state would deliver on its promise of proceeding with the case.

“The state is entitled to change its position but the relevance of the change is further indication of the state’s prevarication, as displayed in the past, repeated in this court by its request for a postponement,” he said. This was a recurring theme from when the case against Thint came to court in October 2005 and this was repeated in March. Naidu said the state arrived in the Durban Magistrate’s Court in October last year and asked the magistrate to adjourn the matter to the high court without motivating why.

The state had also not provided Thint with an indictment, a requirement for cases to be heard in the high court. Naidu said after the Johannesburg High Court ruled against the state in the search and seizure application brought by Zuma’s other attorney, Julekha Mahomed, in September last year, the state ought to have anticipated further challenges and should not have committed to begin trial on July 31 this year.

He said the state was the primary agent for the delay.

The trial continues today.

With acknowledgement to Ernest Mabuza and Business Day.