Jacob Zuma's legal team has lost a bid to block documents held by Mauritian authorities from being used by local prosecutors in his fraud and corruption case.

The Mauritian Supreme Court yesterday said Zuma was no different to a person whose "incriminating bank or cellphone records" had been seized as evidence, and his rights would not be jeopardised if the documents were used as evidence. The ruling is a blow to Zuma's legal team, which has been trying to weaken the state's case or get it thrown out of court. It now has to pin its hopes on a pending Constitutional Court judgment on the legality of warrants issued in 2005 for raids on Zuma's home and those of his associates, and on a Pietermaritzburg High Court application.

The Constitutional Court case has already attracted controversy with Cape Judge President John Hlophe accused of trying to sway two judges to rule in favour of the African National Congress president. Yesterday, Hlophe filed a reply to the judges' complaint against him with the Judicial Service Commission.

The Pietermaritzburg case is a bid by Zuma's lawyers to have his case withdrawn before his August 14 corruption trial on the grounds the investigation is a thinly veiled attempt to exclude him from politics.

In a judgment issued yesterday, Mauritian Judge Rehana Mungly-Gulbul said the court could not refuse to hand over documents simply because there was a risk of Zuma being prosecuted as a result.

On Zuma's allegations of "political persecution", the judge said such allegations would need to be "thrashed out in an open court of a full hearing (in SA ) and not on mere affidavit evidence".

The 14 potentially damning documents in the possession of Mauritian authorities include the infamous encrypted fax allegedly soliciting a R1m bribe from French arms company Thint for Zuma, and the 2000 diary of former Thint CE Alain Thetard, which documents meetings between Thetard, Zuma and convicted businessman Schabir Shaik during which a R500000-a-year bribe was allegedly discussed.

Zuma's lawyer, Michael Hulley, said yesterday that Zuma's legal team would decide today how to proceed.

"We are busy studying the ruling and will consult with our two counsel in Mauritius and my client (Zuma) as to the next course of action."

Copies of the disputed documents were used to prosecute Shaik, but the National Prosecuting Authority is now requesting the originals, which were retained by Mauritius's Independent Commission Against Corruption.

With acknowledgements to Chantelle Benjamin and Business Day.