Jacob Zuma was on Thursday given firm indication that the state was going to pursue its fraud and corruption case against him when the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) obtained a court order enabling it to extend its inquiries to the United Kingdom.

In its endeavour to build up a watertight case before deciding whether to re-instate criminal proceedings against him, the state was granted permission to approach banks and solicitors in the United Kingdom in its investigation against Zuma and Thint.

Pretoria High Court judge Ben du Plessis ruled that the competent authority of the United Kingdom be requested to provide the legal assistance sought by the NDPP in its investigation.

The court order stated: "There are reasonable grounds for believing that offences have been committed in South Africa or that it is necessary to determine whether offences have been committed and that an investigation in respect thereof is being conducted." The judge said it was in the interests of justice that the information be obtained in the United Kingdom.

'The offence of racketeering is still under investigation' Leonard McCarthy, the head of special operations in the NDPP, stated in the letter of request that it was clear from the facts emanating from the Schabir Shaik trial that there was at the very least prima facie evidence that Zuma and Thint were guilty of corruption and money laundering.

"Further, the offence of racketeering is still under investigation and there is a possibility that this might be added to the (provisional) indictment, should the prosecution be reinstituted," McCarthy said.

After Shaik's conviction and subsequent 15-year jail sentence, Zuma was indicted on charges of corruption. A provisional indictment was served on him on June 29 2005 when he appeared in court.

The state aimed to amend these documents before the trial started to encompass the results of a new investigation after the Shaik trial. McCarthy said that that investigation was still continuing.

The state was not ready to commence with prosecution in September 2006 and asked for a postponement, which was refused. The matter was struck from the roll.

'There is a reasonable prospect that charges will in future be reinstituted' McCarthy said there was no legal bar to the reinstitution of the proceedings against Zuma or Thint, although the latter two contended they were entitled to a permanent stay of prosecution against them. He said it was necessary that the current extended investigation be continued.

"There is a reasonable prospect that charges will in future be reinstituted against one or more of the erstwhile accused and/or others. However, the NDPP has not yet decided whether to do so and on what charges. The indictment may differ in certain respects from the provisional indictment."

In order to build up a watertight case against Zuma and Thint, the NDPP needs the assistance of the manager of Barclays Bank London, where the account of solicitors Berwin Leighton Paisner is held. The NDPP will also approach the solicitors regarding details of a payment made in August 2001 from their bank account to an entity in South Africa named Cay Nominees Ltd. It will also seek information from other entities that might be identified in the course of the investigations.

McCarthy said the NDPP needed assistance in obtaining a forensic analysis of all Zuma's sources of funding.

It was necessary to determine what Shaik, his Nkobi groups of companies and Thint paid Zuma as general "bribes" to secure his influence for their business and for securing his protection against the arms deal investigation, he said.

Shaik claimed the payments were legitimate loans, and it was anticipated that Zuma would raise a similar defence (if indicted again), McCarthy said.

"It is therefore necessary to determine all of Zuma's legitimate sources of income, in order to strengthen our contention that he was not in a position to repay loans of this magnitude."

McCarthy said it was also necessary to exclude funds that did not emanate from Shaik, Nkobi or Thint/Thomson.

McCarthy stated that in terms of South African law, the state was not precluded from reinstituting charges, once it was ready to proceed with the prosecution.

It would not be double jeopardy, he said, as the previous charges against Zuma and the Thint companies were struck from the roll before they were asked to plead.

McCarthy said the prosecuting authority undertook that any assistance provided in the UK would be used solely for completing the investigation and for a possible prosecution.

This article was originally published on page 1 of Pretoria News on March 30, 2007

With acknowledgement to Zelda Venter and Independent Online.