Defence's argument

Jacob Zuma's lawyers focused on discrediting his rape accuser as an accomplished liar, driven by her desire for money and fame.

Zuma's counsel, Kemp J Kemp SC, suggested the woman had been motivated by "the possibility of compensation".

Zuma's defence admitted that he had engaged in negotiations with his accuser following the alleged rape incident, but claimed she had "kept him on a string … until … (her) mother met Zuma and discovered the meagre pickings".

She had been drawn by "the lure of fame and fortune", Zuma's legal team stated. "A book or interview with the rape episode in it will sell well." She had a "sexual pathology" of making false rape allegations and had refused to allow herself to be psychiatrically evaluated by the defence's psychiatric expert.

Kemp further said it was possible that the complainant had convinced herself that she was raped by Zuma, "because this is what she does". He also claimed that the defence had gathered statements showing that the complainant had made numerous false rape allegations.

She was part of a "political plot" to discredit Zuma. According to Zuma's defence team, the complainant's explanation of her seven-minute phone call to Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils and long conversation with Kasrils' co-worker, Kimi Msibi, in the hours before she laid her rape charge against Zuma, had not been "convincing".

She was an "accomplished liar" whose evidence in court had differed "materially" from the statement she had given to police.

While the state's expert psychologist, Dr Merle Friedman, diagnosed the complainant as exhibiting behaviour consistent with that of a rape survivor, Zuma's defence team argued that her findings were tainted by her failure to take a comprehensive psychiatric history from the complainant.

Addressing police testimony that Zuma had pointed out the complainant's room as "the alleged crime scene", Kemp appeared to change his approach in response to the damaging evidence led by the state this week.

Earlier Kemp accused Commissioner Norman Taioe and Detective Superintendent Bafana Peter Linda of lying about Zuma's admission - which, if found to be true, would support the complainant's version of the alleged rape and undermine Zuma's claim that he had sex with the complainant in his bedroom.

Instead Kemp yesterday argued that the police had engaged in a deliberate strategy to trap Zuma. He has asked that the evidence given by both Taioe and Linda should be ruled inadmissible because Zuma had not been warned of his rights.

He argued that to allow the pointing-out of the guest room by Zuma, as well as his claim that "nothing happened" in his own bedroom, to be used against him, would further be an infringement of his constitutional rights.

"The approach of the police was deliberately misleading and indicative of cynical entrapment. It was intended to catch the suspect unawares," Kemp argued in papers.

State's argument

The state has vehemently opposed the application by Jacob Zuma's legal team that the case against him should be dismissed.

It also hit back at claims that its case against him was weak. The state's argument, written and signed by lead prosecutor advocate Charin de Beer, was presented by her colleague, advocate Herman Broodryk.

The state rejected the description of the complainant as a liar by Zuma's counsel, Kemp J Kemp, saying she had stuck to her version of events concerning the alleged rape under cross-examination and her evidence appeared "inherently probable".

"We do not agree that she was an 'accomplished liar' - the few examples cited are, with respect, not sufficient to justify such an inference," Broodryk said.

He said the complainant consistently denied the defence's claims that she had made several false rape allegations, and that the defence had yet to prove any of them, making the suggestion that this was something she had done before of no evidential value.

Broodryk added that if the evidence pertaining to alleged previous false rape allegations were eventually put forward by the defence, the state would ask that they not be admitted.

Addressing the defence team's criticism of the differences between the complainant'spolice statement and her evidence, Broodryk said these could be explained by the fact that the first statement was "taken down by a detective sergeant in what cannot be described as the most fluent manner" and that the "language, words and grammar used were not exactly hers".

The complainant, he said, had stated that many of the things she had said during her consultation with the police had not been taken down.

Broodryk said the complainant had been well within her rights to refuse to meet with the defence team's psychologist.

He also disputed the defence's claims that the rape charge had been engineered by anti-Zuma campaigners. "If this was supposed to be a political conspiracy, then it was not very well planned … Even the defence has had to concede that there are no real facts to support this theory," Broodryk said.

The state had relied on the expert evidence of clinical psychologist and trauma expert Dr Merle Friedman, who had described the woman's conduct - "freezing and submitting" during the alleged rape and her subsequent delay in reporting the matter - as consistent with literature on the behaviour of rape survivors, as well as her personal experience.

Broodryk said Commissioner Norman Taioe had testified that he had not warned Zuma at the start of the police visit to his Forest Town, Joburg, home, as the formal warning had taken place five days earlier at Zuma's home at Nkandla, KwaZulu Natal, and because his lawyer was present at all times. The visit was considered to be a follow-up.

"It is submitted that at all relevant times the accused was aware of his rights," Broodryk said.

With acknowledgement to Karyn Maughan, Gill Gifford and The Star.