Schabir Shaik's last bid for freedom will be heard in the constitutional court today and tomorrow. The former financial adviser to ANC deputy president Jacob Zuma is asking the court for leave to appeal his conviction on two counts of corruption and one of fraud, his 15-year jail term and the seizure of his assets.

He contends that his constitutional rights to freedom, equality, dignity and a fair trial have been infringed by the trial and appeal courts.

Shaik was convicted on June 2 2005 in the Durban high court. The supreme court of appeal upheld the conviction and sentence on November 6 last year and he reported to Westville Prison, in Durban, on November 9.

However, he was quickly transferred to Qalakabusha prison, where it was said to be easier to monitor his serious medical condition of the past five years.

Shaik was sent back to Westville Prison yesterday after spending more than a month in the Inkosi Albert Luthuli Central Hospital, two months in the infirmary at Qalakabusha prison and 83 days at St Augustine's Hospital for hypertension and other blood pressure-related conditions.

Officials have repeatedly denied media claims that he is receiving preferential treatment in prison.

Shaik contends that he and his companies should have been tried with Zuma, and wants evidence given in Zuma's trial to be admitted as new evidence in his case.

He holds that certain searches and seizures conducted in his case were unlawful and the evidence obtained inadmissible.

He further submits that parts of the evidence in his trial amounted to hearsay.

He also draws attention to the media's influence on the supreme court of appeal through erroneous reports that the court found he had "a generally corrupt" relationship with Zuma.

Arguing for a lesser sentence, Shaik moves that the trial court infringed his right to dignity by not taking into account the economic disadvantages of black people under apartheid.

The State, meanwhile, claims Shaik should have spoken up when the case first went to court or at least when it was before the appeals court.

It contends that none of Shaik's contentions are constitutional matters of substance, or issues connected with decisions on constitutional matters.

With acknowledgements to Sapa and Pretoria News.