Former deputy president Jacob Zuma and French arms manufacturer, Thint, will not formally reply until Friday to the state's request that the trial be adjourned - but it is understood that the defence intends to make a meal of the apparent "vagueness" of a crucial issue in the state's papers.

In the state's notice of intention to apply for an adjournment, filed in the high court of the KwaZulu-Natal provincial division this week, the state requested that the trial of Zuma on charges of corruption and fraud, and Thint on charges of corruption, not be held as scheduled, on July 31, but "be adjourned to a date in 2007".

In the letter, sent on June 26 by Anton Steynberg, deputy director of public prosecutions in KwaZulu-Natal, to Zuma's and Thint's attorneys, Steynberg said the state would apply for an adjournment until February 2007.

However, in the affidavit by Johan Du Plooy, a senior special investigator of the Scorpions, which is the meat of the application, Du Plooy states he "is advised" that a suitable date for the start of the trial would be in "the first half of 2007".

'Some uncertainty in the state's ranks' in Du Plooy's affidavit, however, he says a trial date of "February 2007" would, "as things stand", appear to be "optimistic".

"You don't need a doctorate in law to see there is apparently some uncertainty in the state's ranks," said a legal expert this week.

" 'A date in 2007' could apply to any date before the end of 2007. And 'the first half of 2007' is not February. So, when exactly does the state want to hold this trial? Does it have any idea? The defence teams are likely to pick up on this vagueness - and to ask those very questions," the expert said.

He said the defence teams (Zuma's led by Kemp J Kemp, SC, and Thint's by Kessie Naidu, SC) were also likely to jump on Du Plooy's comment in the papers that: "The corruption of a government minister, let alone the deputy president of the country, is in itself a matter of the utmost gravity ... I believe it can be stated without hyperbole that this is possibly one of the most serious and significant cases in the history of our democracy."

The expert said: "I think that the defence is likely to agree whole-heartedly with those sentiments - and then ask the trial judge why, if that is the case, the state is not getting on with it?"

'Matter of the utmost gravity' In the 65-page argument for an adjournment, Du Plooy listed a number of factors that had prevented the NPA from being able to complete its investigations and to deliver a final indictment.

Du Plooy said that in August 2005 the investigation into Zuma had been "extended" to include the possibility that he committed fraud in connection with declarations he made to the Registrar of Parliamentary Members' Interests and to the SA Revenue Services.

Further investigation was required into whether Zuma had received "significant funding" from a businessman named Jörgen Kogl and his company Cay Nominees, from Nora Fakude-Nkuna and her company Bohlabela Wheels, and from KZN businessman Vivian Reddy.

Du Plooy said that in the Shaik matter, the forensic report had been 250 pages long and been supported by supplementary reports and 20 lever-arch files.

"It is expected that the report in the present matter will be even longer, and the exhibit files even more voluminous."

This article was originally published on page 7 of Sunday Argus on July 23, 2006

With acknowledgement to Jeremy Gordin and Independent On Line.