With only two weeks left before the start of the ANC's national conference, it is still unclear whether Jacob Zuma will contest the position of party president as a corruption accused or not.

The NPA's Zuma investigations team on Thursday presented a "final briefing" to acting NPA head Mokotedi Mpshe, who must now decide *1 if he has enough evidence to recharge Zuma.

In a brief progress statement, the NPA said Mpshe "will announce his decision on the matter after careful consideration of all information presented. This process is a very protracted one and involves the assessment of all the work completed thus far."

The Mail & Guardian previously reported that the NPA's recent court victory in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has cleared the way for Zuma to be recharged before the ANC's December conference.

Zuma and his attorney, Michael Hulley, have now challenged this judgement of the SCA which gave the NPA full access to the documents seized from their premises. Mpshe might want to wait for the completion of this process before deciding on whether to recharge Zuma.

A charge before the December conference could be the only real threat to Zuma's campaign for ANC presidency. Some of his confidants have expressed the fear that such a move could make a dent in his support while others have argued that it could strengthen Zuma's claim that he is the victim of a political conspiracy.

Zuma himself has maintained that fresh charges will not make him back down since to do so would imply guilt.

Two applications for leave to appeal were this week lodged by Zuma and Hulley at the Constitutional Court.

The one concerns the Zuma raids, the other the SCA's ruling that the NPA may engage the Mauritian authorities for access to original documents seized from the offices of French arms manufacturer Thales.

Thales's local affiliate, Thint, launched a leave to appeal application after the SCA dismissed its appeal against raids on the company's premises.

In their application, Zuma and Hulley describe the SCA's judgement on the search and seizure operations as "fundamentally flawed". They further allege that this majority judgement of appeal Judge Robert Nugent has left the law "in a state of uncertainty insofar as the requirements for validity of search warrants are concerned".

According to Zuma and Hulley, the SCA split decision was because of one major "decisive" issue: the approach to its scale and vagueness in respect to the search warrants.

Nugent held that the Zuma warrants explained "intelligibly and with certainty the scope of the authority that they confer" and that it was for the statute and not the courts to prescribe to the NPA what should be included in warrants.

In opposition to this, the minority judgement of Judge Ian Farlam ruled that the warrants were too vague and wide.

"The outcome in the SCA has simply demonstrated that the issues are contentious and of principle. It is thus clear also that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal," Hulley wrote in his founding affidavit, confirmed by Zuma, to the Constitutional Court.

Unsurprisingly Zuma and Hulley concur with Farlam, arguing that their constitutional rights to privacy, dignity, property and to a fair trial [for Zuma] have been infringed.

They also persist with the accusation that the Scorpions were "intent on getting details of Zuma's defence" against corruption charges when they raided his properties. Zuma and Hulley even suggest that a second raid might be on the cards, particularly if Zuma is recharged. This will necessitate a change of tack.

"Preparation at the practical level will be affected by this spectre -- requests to the first applicant [Zuma] to read parts of the evidence in [the Schabir] Shaik [trial] and parts of the judgement therein and make notes of his responses will have to be avoided."

The NPA has until December 20 to file their opposing papers.

Mpshe has been briefed by the Zuma prosecutions team on numerous occasions and his failure up to now to make a decision could indicate that he would rather wait for the finalisation of the entire legal process before deciding whether to recharge Zuma.

This could take months. The Constitutional Court has a full court roll and it is unlikely that a judgement will be delivered before late next year. If Mpshe decides to take this route, Zuma might only be back in court in early 2009.

If Zuma becomes ANC president, this could create a quagmire for the party, which will have to nominate its candidate for president of the country when South Africa goes to the polls in April that year.

Zuma will be on trial and, if convicted, is likely to be sentenced to the minimum term of 15 years imprisonment.

With acknowledgements to Adriaan Basson and Mail and Guardian.