Jacob Zuma’s lawyer believes he will be charged with corruption following a major court blow yesterday. KwaZulu-Natal Deputy Judge President Phillip Levensohn granted the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) application seeking a letter asking Mauritius authorities to hand over documents held by the Mauritius High Court.

The letter will allow the Scorpions to obtain original evidence that may detail alleged corruption involving former Deputy President Jacob Zuma. Zuma and French arms company Thint have battled to keep the original documents out of the hands of the NPA, and have indicated they will not accept as evidence copies of the documents used by the NPA to prosecute Schabir Shaik. Moments after Levensohn’s ruling, Zuma’s lawyer Michael Hulley told The Citizen: “With the greatest respect to the judge we believe this decision is wrong.

We will be seeking leave to appeal, and those proceedings will be launched next week, probably on Wednesday.” Hulley said he believed his client would be charged with corruption. “Clearly that is the State’s intent. Everything tells me that they intend to prosecute.” The documents Levensohn has allowed the NPA to seek detail meetings between officials of the French arms company Thint and Schabir Shaik – in which it is alleged a bribe for Zuma was discussed.

The documents were seized in a 2001 raid on Thint offices in Mauritius, but the Scorpions have only copies of the documents – the originals were lodged in the Mauritius High Court. The State has claimed it wants these documents for an investigation. Hulley said there was no doubt the State wanted them to prosecute the former Deputy President.

For the first time Hulley spoke about the allegation made in his court papers that the State “did not approach the court with clean hands” – a polite legal term suggesting the prosecution was not being open and honest. Said Hulley: “If we thought the decision to prosecute or not might still go either way we would perhaps have phrased that in a different way. “But we have taken the decision to be robust in our defence.

I am convinced the State has already taken a decision to charge Mr Zuma.” Levensohn said he did not believe the State’s application for the documents was legally flawed. He also rejected the “dirty hands” claim, saying he found no impropriety in the means by which the State had obtained copies of the documents.

The decision did not grant leave to appeal – meaning Zuma will have to bring an application seeking the right to appeal.

With acknowledgements to Paul Kirk and The Citizen.