Jacob Zuma went all the way to Mauritius last week to try to stop the island's authorities handing documents to South Africa's National Prosecuting Authority. But everyone involved in his legal tussles already knows what is in them anyway.

The contents of most, if not all, the 13 documents were used in the 2004/5 trial of Schabir Shaik, Zuma's former financial adviser.

But Zuma had to go to Mauritius because local law requires that someone bringing a legal action be present at the court.

"Judge Hilary Squires, who convicted Shaik, found the documents admissible," said Michael Hulley, Zuma's attorney, yesterday.

"So everyone's seen them - there's nothing secret or shocking or anything like that. But the state knows that we would argue strenuously that they were unlawfully obtained - this is how we read the deal struck all those years ago by the Scorpions and the Mauritian authorities. The state, wanting to have this aspect of the case against Zuma and Thint 'cleaned up', applied covertly to the Mauritian attorney-general for the official transmission of the documents to the NPA.

"It's simply this that we are opposing."

Zuma and Thint, the French arms manufacturer, were re-charged by the NPA in December with fraud and corruption, and Zuma with money-laundering and tax evasion as well, a few days after Zuma was elected president of the ANC.

In September 2006, the case against them was struck off the roll in the Pietermaritzburg High Court.

Many of the charges against Zuma in the new indictment are similar to those of 2006 and those in the Shaik trial, including especially that Shaik facilitated a bribe for Zuma from Thint. One of the 13 documents of which the NPA is seeking a "lawful" copy, is the diary belonging to Alain Thetard, former Thint representative in South Africa.

The diary has a note of a March 2000 meeting of Thetard and Zuma at which, the state alleges, the R500 000-a-year bribe was agreed upon, in exchange for which Zuma would protect Thint from the arms deal inquiry.

According to Hulley, Mauritian law effectively frowns on "politically motivated" prosecutions and therefore his client's submission dealt in detail with this issue.

Also last week Zuma's legal team filed an application in the Constitutional Court for the setting aside of the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision that the NPA could ask the Mauritian authorities to release the documents.

The appeal against the SCA's finding has been made on the basis of Zuma's "dignity" under the Constitution and his right to a fair trial.

Zuma also applied last week to the Constitutional Court for the overturning of the 2005 search-and-seizure warrants used by the Scorpions to seize documents from Zuma and from attorneys, Hulley and Julekha Mohamed respectively.

The Supreme Court of Appeal refused to overturn these warrants, but Zuma's application to the Constitutional Court argues that his right to privacy, right to dignity and right to property and his right to a fair trial were infringed by the warrants.

The warrants were issued to the Scorpions in August 2005 by Bernard Ngoepe, the judge president of the Transvaal.

Zuma told the Constitutional Court, as an example of the "gross" violation of his privacy and dignity that when the Scorpions raided his Killarney flat they seized a diary belonging to his late wife Kate despite the complaints of Mxilisi, a son of his and Kate's.

Thint has also submitted applications to the Constitutional Court related to both the Mauritian and search warrant matters, seeking the setting aside of the SCA findings.

The Constitutional Court appeal of Zuma and Thint will be heard on March 11 and 12.

With acknowledgements to Jeremy Gordin and Cape Argus.