In the Durban High Court today, the first of seven cases involving key documents begins

Seven court cases in four months - the first beginning this morning - will determine whether Jacob Zuma will be accused of fraud or exonerated by the time the ANC presidential election takes place.

Before the leadership voting in November, judges in three courts will decide whether the State may obtain evidence related to the alleged R500 000 bribe Zuma received from French arms company Thint.

They must also decide whether the State can use documents which prosecuting au-thorities used to produce a vol-uminous audit of Zuma's financial affairs.

This morning in the Durban High Court, Zuma's lawyers are expected to try to squash the State's attempts to obtain the original documents that helped to convict Schabir Shaik of fraud and corruption.

These have been held by Mauritian authorities for the past six years.

In court documents, Zuma has accused the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) of "engineering" its probe to thwart his political ambitions.

"This would greatly aid the cause of those politically opposed to me playing any leadership role in the ANC or government of the RSA," he said.

He was "disturbed" that the NPA, by seeking information related to its investigations from UK and Mauritian authorities, was casting him "in the role of a criminal and suspect".

"The present letter of request (to British authorities) … makes the bland statement that the offence (that I am being investigated for) 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."

The State, in turn, claims Zuma has "not a shred of credible evidence" to support his "scandalous, vexatious, argumentative and irrelevant" suggestions of political conspiracy.

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anton Steynberg has said the State "has no interest in Zuma's political ambitions" and is simply attempting to "complete all outstanding investigations, insofar as possible, before taking a decision on any further prosecution".

Steynberg argued that Zuma's and Thint's objections were aimed at preventing "the State's possession of damning evidence which might be used against them in any future prosecution".

In addition to the Constitutional Court's ruling on Shaik's appeal bid, several cases will shape the fate of Zuma and Thint.

May 29: The Mauritian documents.

The NPA has won an order from Mr Justice Phillip Levensohn allowing prosecutors to request certain documents from the Mauritian authorities. The State has described these as "damning" evidence against Zuma and Thint.

The documents include the 2000 diary of Alain Thetard, former chief executive of Thint, Thales International's SA subsidiary.

The diary details a meeting between Thetard, Zuma and Shaik, which the State alleges ended with an agreement on a bribe of R500 000 a year for Zuma from Thint.

On September 21, Zuma and Thint will ask the Supreme Court of Appeal to overturn Judge Levensohn's decision.

But they are now trying to prevent the State obtaining the documents prior to the appeal being heard.

August 22: the British request.

Zuma's attorneys are trying to prevent the State obtaining information about his and Thint's financial affairs from banks and lawyers in the UK.

This information, court documents say, related to how Thint allegedly paid Zuma R500 000 in exchange for protection from a damaging arms deal inquiry. Zuma wants the State to be prevented from requesting the information - despite the fact that it obtained a court order to do so.

August 27, 28 and 29: the Scorpions raids.

The Scorpions carried out search-and-seizure operations targeting Zuma and his current attorney, Michael Hulley, for-mer attorney Julekha Mahom-ed and Thint's offices.

Legal representatives for Zuma, Thint and the State will wrangle over the raids two years ago which yielded 93 000 documents on which the State's forensic audit of Zuma's fin-ances was based.

In February last year, Durban High Court judge Noel Hurt set aside search warrants pertaining to Zuma's offices and homes and the Durban offices of Hulley. The State is appealing against the decision.

The SCA will also have to rule on the State's appeal against a judgment by Johannesburg High Court Judge Ismail Hussain that searches and seizures of documents from Mahomed's Johannesburg premises were unlawful.

Mr Justice Hussain ruled that the DPP had violated the safeguards of the National Prosecuting Authority Act by failure to disclose to Judge President Bernard Ngoepe - who had signed the warrant - that Mahomed was a practising attorney.

Thint is appealing against a finding by Pretoria High Court judge Ben du Plessis that the warrants used to raid the company's offices were lawful.

With acknowledgement to Karyn Maughan and Cape Argus.