There was never any decision not to prosecute ANC president Jacob Zuma "forever" advocate Wim Trengove told the Supreme Court of Appeal on Friday.

In his August 2003 finding that there was prima facie evidence of corruption against Zuma, but not enough to win the case in court, former NPA boss Bulelani Ngcuka had made it clear that "this is our decision for now" Trengove submitted.

"He never made a promise that no charges would be laid in the future."

The NPA is seeking to have a Pietermaritzburg High Court ruling on September 12 by Judge Chris Nicholson overturned on appeal.

Nicholson ruled that the NPA's decision to charge Zuma was unlawful because he had not been allowed make representations to the National Director of Public Prosecutions before he was charged.

Zuma has claimed that he had a legitimate right to make representations to the NPA after it reversed their decision not to prosecute him.

Zuma's legal team has also claimed that the NDPP's decision to prosecute last year constituted a reversal of Ngcuka's 2003 decision.

Earlier, Trengove told the court it made no sense for NDPP decisions to be subject to review, while those of his juniors were not.

Trengove said members of the NPA at "lower levels" were not subject review when they reversed their own decisions and that it was "wholly illogical" for only the National Director of Public Prosecutions to be subject to review.

It has been claimed that in terms of section 179(5) of the constitution, the NDPP needed to consult with a Director of Public Prosecutions.

The State has argued that the NDPP needed to consult with a DPP only when he was reversing that DPP's decision to not to prosecute.

Trengove argued that it made no sense for the NDPP to consult with a DPP when reversing his own decision.

"They (Zuma's legal team) say the purpose of the section is to protect the rights of the complainant, but only when the decision has been publicly announced. They say the purpose of the section is to protect the rights of the complainant."

He questioned why such protection was not applied to all DPP's and why it was not enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

"If they intended to do it, why put not put it in the Bill of Rights, where the rights of the accused are very exhaustively spelled out."

Referring to common law, he said: "Common law is quite emphatic in its reluctance to interfere in the decisions of the prosecution.

Zuma was facing a charge of racketeering, four charges of corruption, a charge of money laundering and 12 charges of fraud

Former president Thabo Mbeki is expected to get 45 minutes to argue why he should be allowed to intervene in the battle between the NPA and Zuma or be admitted to the legal fray as a friend of the court.

Mbeki wants to challenge Nicholson's finding of political inferences against him, which Mbeki claims led the ANC to recall him from his position as president of the country.

Zuma arrived at court to the sound of a single siren, which went unnoticed by supporters gathered at Hertzog Square opposite the court building.

Dressed in a charcoal suit, blue shirt and tie, Zuma smiled as photographers rushed to get a picture of him before the hearing started at 9.45am.

Surrounded by bodyguards, Zuma commented on the large number of journalists gathered to see him before walking up the steps and disappearing into the court building.

Supporters started arriving in buses shortly after both legal teams arrived at the court.

Moments later Zuma entered Court One, was greeted by his legal team and took his seat next to his attorney Michael Hulley.

With acknowledgements to Andre Grobler, Giordano Stolley and Sapa.