Jacob Zuma wants the Pretoria high court to set aside an order allowing the National Director of Public Prosecutions to extend its investigations to the UK.

At the end of March, the NDPP brought an ex-parte application in which it asked permission to approach banks and solicitors in the UK as part of its investigations into possibly reinstating fraud and corruption charges against Zuma.

Judge Ben du Plessis granted the order, but Zuma only became aware of the application when a journalist informed his attorney Michael Hulley about it.

Zuma now wants to contest the order.

In an affidavit, signed on May 7 this year, Zuma stated that he had every right to contest the order.

He expressed concern about the fact that the NDPP kept this application a secret from him.

Zuma is also fighting a Durban court order that allows the NDPP to ask the government of Mauritius to hand over documents relating to its investigations into Zuma.

The NDPP in its earlier application stated that "there are reasonable grounds for believing that offences have been committed in SA and that an investigation in respect thereof is being conducted".

It said it was in the interest of justice that further information be obtained in the UK.

Leonard McCarthy, head of special operations of the NDPP, stated in the earlier letter of request that there was no legal bar to reinstating criminal proceedings against Zuma and Thint and that the offence of racketeering could be added to the possible charges.

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

But Zuma is vehemently objecting to this.

He stated: "The letter of request addressed to some unknown agency casts me in the role of criminal and suspect.

"It makes the bland statement that the offence is not political. It makes no mention of the fact that the issue of a political motive as a component of the investigation directed at all my affairs has been central to my resistance to the manner of the investigation."

Zuma said if he was made a respondent in this case, the court could ensure that the "competent" authority in the UK was made aware of all the features of this matter.

"In short, it is not only the issue of the 'evidence' sought which affects my constitutional rights, but also the manner in which it is done.

"I am frankly disturbed that another government be presented with the one-sided version of the prosecution and the timing of the request."

Zuma said he could be severely prejudiced if the NDPP executed the order before his application to have it set aside had been heard.

He said there was no way of telling how the information obtained by the prosecution (by making use of this order) may affect further investigations against him.

Meanwhile, no date has yet been set for Zuma's application.

With acknowledgements to Zelda Venter and Pretoria News.