Last-ditch attempt ahead of Polokwane

Presidential frontrunner Jacob Zuma has made his last legal stand against possible prosecution for fraud and corruption 17 days before the battle for the leadership of the ANC is decided.

But, in contrast to his last five court battles with the National Prosecuting Authority, Zuma and his legal team have shied away from accusing the state of "engineering" its case against him so that the ANC deputy president would appear as a "criminal accused" at the ANC's leadership conference in Polokwane.

Instead, Zuma's lawyers have come out blazing against the Supreme Court of Appeal ruling that the warrants used to search his homes and offices were valid a decision that effectively allows the state to use a massive forensic audit, compiled from the seized documents, as evidence against him.

The state's audit of Zuma's financial affairs, compiled from 93 000 seized documents, forms the basis of additional charges of money-laundering and tax evasion that he will face if he is recharged.

It is also understood to show that Zuma received R3,5-million in payments from his former financial adviser and convicted fraudster Schabir Shaik after Shaik was charged with corrupting him.

During Shaik's trial the state proved that Shaik had solicited a bribe of R500 000 a year from French arms company Thomson-CSF for Zuma in exchange for the then deputy president's protection in the event of probes into the arms deal.

Zuma's lawyer, Michael Hulley, yesterday questioned why the three appeal court judges who ruled that the warrants were valid had "cursorily dismissed" arguments that they were vague and overbroad "without any reasons as such".

National Prosecuting Authority spokesperson Tlali Tlali yesterday declined to comment on Zuma's attack on the court ruling.

Behind the scenes, however, the Zuma camp is furiously stoking speculation that the Directorate of Special Operations will recharge the ANC deputy president as soon as he returns from a series of international visits.

In papers filed at the Constitutional Court yesterday, Hulley argued that there was no dispute that the controversial August 2005 warrants used to search his and Zuma's homes and offices and previously found to be unlawful by the Durban High Court "are not and cannot be intelligible" and were "riddled with imprecision and vagueness".

Hulley also argued that they were invalid because, by allowing the state to search his offices, they violated attorney-client privilege.

The state has until December 20 to respond.