Durban - If the High Court granted an "execution order" - allowing prosecutors to use Mauritian documents in investigating Jacob Zuma - that would affect the Supreme Court of Appeal's ability to rule on subsequent appeals, it was argued on Tuesday.

Legal teams for African National Congress deputy president Jacob Zuma and French arms-manufacturing company Thint argued before Judge Jan Hugo in Durban High Court that the granting of the order would not be "just and equitable".

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) is seeking an execution order to have the documents brought to South Africa, while an appeal against the NPA's being allowed to use the documents is still pending.

The appeal is to be heard in the Appeal Court in September.

Judge Philip Levensohn granted "a letter of authorisation" about the documents in April, but Thint and Zuma obtained leave to appeal against the letter being executed.

Diary holds proof

The documents which the NPA seeks include the diary of former Thint chief executive Alain Thetard.

These allegedly prove there were meetings held at which Zuma, convicted Durban businessman Schabir Shaik and Thetard met to discuss a R500 000 a year bribe.

Kemp J Kemp, Zuma's advocate, said: "If the order is granted all they will have scored is four months."

Both he and Thint advocate Nirmal Singh pointed out that the granting of the execution order would result in legal action in Mauritius, which "would be all for nothing" if Thint and Zuma won their appeal.

Singh argued that the State had not told the court that the letter of authorisation also directed officials in Mauritius to obtain statements in the form of affidavits from those connected with the documents.

He said the International Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act directed that those statements would have to be accepted by a trial court, and therefore Thint would not have the option of contesting the admissibility of the affidavits.

"How do you undo that?" he asked.

State 'entitled'

However, State prosecutor Billy Downer said that the admissibility of the documents could be argued in a trial court if it was decided to prosecute Zuma and Thint.

Downer said neither Zuma or Thint had been prejudiced and the State was entitled to get all the evidence it required.

He said it was in the public interest "to look to the courts to get things moving,", adding that the Thint and Zuma camps would argue that the State was not allowing their clients a speedy and fair trial.

However, Kemp countered: "I can't recall ever asking for an adjournment. I can recall that the State has, some times unsuccessfully."

With acknowledgement to News24.