Within hours of a Mauritian court refusing Jacob Zuma the right to stop South African prosecutors from securing evidence against him, lawyers for the ANC president were planning to challenge its ruling.

Speaking to The Star last night, Zuma's attorney, Michael Hulley, said he would be consulting with Zuma's Mauritian legal team with a view to launching an appeal against Mauritian Supreme Court Judge Rehana Mungly-Gulbul's decision.

"We take note of the judge's ruling, but we respectfully disagree with it," Hulley said.

In a 14-page judgment, Judge Mungly-Gulbul said Zuma would be allowed to attend the hearing of the National Prosecuting Authority's request for the originals of 13 Mauritian documents used to convict his former financial adviser Schabir Shaik of fraud and corruption.

The 13 documents include the 2000 diary of former Thint CEO Alain Thetard, which detailed a meeting between him, Zuma and Shaik at which a R500 000-a-year bribe for Zuma was allegedly discussed.

Despite Zuma's claims that the information was being sought as part of a politically motivated bid to thwart his political ambitions, the judge yesterday said he would not be allowed to intervene in the NPA's application.

"Such presence is only to enable him to follow the proceedings so as to be in a better position to build up his defence in the eventuality of a trial," she said.

While Zuma claimed he was the victim of a plot orchestrated by President Thabo Mbeki and suspended NPA head Vusi Pikoli, Judge Mungly-Gulbul said Zuma had not shown "good cause" as to why he should be allowed to intervene.

"Whatever bona fide belief the applicant (Zuma) may hold to the effect that he is being persecuted and his trial is politically motivated may be raised before the proper forum, which, in this case, is the trial court in South Africa," she added.

According to the judge, "One must not lose sight of the fact that the request in the main case in which the applicant (Zuma) seeks to intervene relates to an investigation into charges of alleged corruption and money laundering in connection with the R30-billion transaction known in South Africa as 'the arms deal'.

"I am of the view that, in so far as the investigation is concerned, (Zuma) is in the same situation as a person in respect of whom incriminating bank books or cellphones have been secured from a third party's premises.

"In an ex parte application by prosecution authorities before the judge in chambers in order to have access to these bank accounts and phone records, can this person claim he has a right to intervene in the proceedings … because he stands the risk of being prosecuted as a result of the evidence uncovered? The logical answer to this question is in the negative."

With acknowledgements to Karyn Maughan and The Star.