The state yesterday defended its investigation procedures into corruption allegations against African National Congress (ANC) deputy president Jacob Zuma, saying he was not entitled to be involved in every step of the investigation process.

Zuma brought an application in the Pretoria High Court to stop the national director of public prosecutions from extending its probe to the UK.

Zuma argued that he should have been informed about the national director of public prosecution’s letter of request to UK authorities to further investigate him on corruption charges as he had a direct interest in the case, a claim the prosecutions authority vehemently disputed.

The prosecuting authority was granted an ex-parte order in the Pretoria High Court in March, giving it permission to obtain overseas assistance as it wanted to gather further evidence against the former deputy president.

There was a possibility that the information the state sought from a solicitor and a bank in the UK might be used by the state to formulate new corruption charges.

The state argued that Zuma’s request would mean that every time the state made an application to a judge, a notice of the state’s intentions should also be given to a potential accused. The prosecution said it was gathering information to determine whether that information might incriminate Zuma.

The state also argued that should the information gathered in the UK become evidence at a later possible trial, Zuma would be able to challenge it then.

The Pietermaritzburg High Court struck the case of corruption against Zuma and French arms company Thint off the roll in September as the state was not ready to proceed, giving it time to gather new evidence.

Zuma said he learnt about the application for a letter of assistance only after Judge Ben du Plessis ratified the letter of request for international assistance from the national director of public prosecutions.

The prosecution sought the assistance of the manager of Barclays Bank in London, where the account of solicitors Berwin Leighton Paisner is held. It also wants assistance from the solicitors about details of a payment made in August 2001 from their bank account to an entity in SA named Cay Nominees.

The prosecuting authority believes that the payment might have been made as a bribe.

Zuma’s counsel, Kemp Kemp SC, said it appeared that Zuma was a direct target of the state’s request and yet the law deemed he had no legal standing to lodge an objection. “It’s about seeking to prosecute Mr Zuma, how can a potential accused not have an interest?” Kemp said.

However, the state said Zuma was hampering the state’s process of finalising its investigation.

The prosecution’s counsel, Billy Downer SC, said the investigation in the UK might or might not lead to charging Zuma again.

The court reserved judgment.

With acknowledgements to Ernest Mabuza and Business Day.