All the indications are that ANC President Jacob Zuma will go into next year's run-up period to the national general elections, and probably even to his inauguration as South Africa's president, as "an accused person".

A full bench of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) said on Friday it would deliver judgment on January 12 on the appeal by the National Prosecuting Authority against the September 12 judgment by Judge Chris Nicholson in the Pietermaritzburg High Court.

But, given the attitude and line of questioning of the lead SCA judges to Zuma's case, presented by Kemp J Kemp SC, the proverbial writing seemed to be on the wall and - immediately after spending the day in court - Zuma told a few thousand supporters congregated outside the SCA that it looked as though he was headed "from Bloemfontein to Braamfontein" in Johannesburg, where the Constitutional Court is situated and where he will appeal the SCA judgment if it goes against him.

In his September judgment, Nicholson set aside the NPA's decision to prosecute Zuma because he had not been allowed to make "representations" about his case. Nicholson also found proof that there had been undue political interference by former president Thabo Mbeki and his cabinet in the decisions to prosecute Zuma, and Nicholson's judgment was cited as part of the reasons given by the national executive committee of the ANC for sacking Mbeki on September 20.

The five SCA judges - Louis Harms, acting deputy president of the SCA, Ian Farlam, Azar Cachalia, Nathan Poonan, and Mandisa Maya - listened without saying much, except for a couple of positive comments, to the presentation by Wim Trengove SC, for the NPA.Trengove argued that, in terms of the law, there had been no obligation for the NPA to allow Zuma representations.

But, when Kemp delivered his arguments, Harms, Farlam and Cachalia, grilled the senior advocate relentlessly and openly criticised what he had to say.

Kemp argued that the NPA had, by not allowing Zuma the opportunity to make representations, flouted Section 179 (5) (d) of the Constitution.

It was because he had accepted the validity of this argument, that Nicholson set aside the NPA's prosecution.

Even if the SCA judges find that, in terms of Section 179 of the Constitution, the NPA should have allowed Zuma some representations, their comments and reactions in court suggested that they would uphold the NPA appeal and set aside Nicholson's judgment.

The NPA will then continue with its case against Zuma, in terms of which he is charged with corruption, racketeering, money laundering and tax evasion, even if he appeals to the Constitutional Court.

Zuma's legal team has also indicated, as Trengove reminded the SCA, that if the case against Zuma continues, he would apply for a permanent stay of the charges against him.

Harms, Farlam and Cachalia were especially critical of Kemp's contention that the various national directors of public prosecutions (Bulelani Ngcuka, Vusi Pikoli, and Mokotedi Mpshe) had "created a legitimate expectation" that Zuma would be allowed to make representations.

Cachalia said to Kemp: "In effect you are saying you wanted the state to disclose their whole case to you. You wanted a trial by representation."

Harms was also deeply scathing about many of the comments made by Nicholson in his judgment, especially those in which Nicholson said he had found indications of political meddling and interference by the executive arm of government.

Harms said he had also been unable to find any direct accusations against Thabo Mbeki, the former president, or his cabinet in the Pietermaritzburg High Court papers.

Kemp replied that he was not responsible for the phrasing of Nicholson's ruling, to which Harms responded: "The problem is that (Nicholson's) comments were made in your favour. Or, at any rate, the judge thought he was doing you a favour."

Trengove said the state also wanted costs awarded against Zuma in the matter of the "accusations" of a political conspiracy - which the NPA had tried to have struck off the record in Pietermaritzburg and which had led to Nicholson's comments in his judgment. Trengove said that accusations of improper political interference were serious issues and that Mbeki, Mabandla and Maduna could face criminal charges if the SCA did not deal with that aspect of Nicholson's ruling. Kemp argued that the political interference comments by Nicholson and the matter in general should be left alone.

"But they are relevant, Mr Kemp," said Harms. "They became very relevant. They arose from the ashes, so to speak, and had very far-reaching consequences."

Related Articles

• Will capitalising work for COPE?
• 'Cabinet should stand aside'

With acknowledgements to Cape Argus.