ANC president Jacob Zuma's legal victory against the state seems likely be short-lived.

After a day that saw three Supreme Court judges savage Judge Chris Nicholson's ruling that Zuma's prosecution was invalid, Acting Appeal Court Deputy Judge President Louis Harms announced that Zuma would learn his fate on January 12 - four days after the party he leads turns 97 years old.

Should the National Prosecuting Authority win the appeal, Zuma will stand as a criminal accused at the same time as he campaigns for the presidency.

Judges Harms, Azar Cachalia and Ian Farlam yesterday all raised questions about Judge Nicholson's effective quashing of Zuma's prosecution on the basis that the NPA failed to seek his representations before charging him with corruption, racketeering, fraud and tax evasion.

They also took significant issue with the judge's "political meddling" inferences against former president Thabo Mbeki and former justice ministers Penuell Maduna and Brigitte Mabandla.

While the judges listened attentively to state counsel Wim Trengove's argument that there was no legal obligation on the NPA to seek Zuma's representations, they were vocal in their criticisms of the arguments raised by Zuma's advocate Kemp J Kemp.

After a particularly brutal hammering from Judge Harms, a clearly flustered Kemp was forced to admit Zuma had not even made any conspiracy claims against Maduna or Mabandla.

Judge Harms also said he found no direct accusations against Mbeki or his Cabinet in the court papers.

When Kemp pointed out that he was not responsible for the phrasing of Judge Nicholson's ruling, Judge Harms responded: "The problem is that they were made in your favour, or the judge thought he was doing you a favour."

Kemp later conceded that the way Judge Nicholson dealt with the "political conspiracy" allegation dispute between Zuma and the state had been less than ideal.

"What really should have happened is that the judge should have said some of these (conspiracy allegations) I find relevant and then just dealt with them," Kemp said.

Judge Harms then asked Kemp to argue why Zuma should not be hit with a punishing legal costs order for his insistence on making the conspiracy claims that resulted in Judge Nicholson's negative inferences against Mbeki and the state.

"(These allegations) have created a huge issue, a very serious issue," said the judge.

"Well, we do maintain that they are relevant," Kemp responded.

Kemp had earlier endured a battering from the Appeal Court over his argument that Zuma had a "legitimate expectation" that the state would inform him of the evidence it had against him - as well as the charges he faced - and then ask for his representations before charging him.

"That's quite an amazing proposition. In effect you're saying you wanted the state to disclose their whole case to you … you wanted a trial by representation," said Judge Cachalia.

By contrast, Trengove seemingly did not set a foot wrong with the judges. He yesterday explained that the NPA had elected to appeal against Judge Nicholson's political meddling inferences against the state and Mbeki because they could compromise the future of any prospective case against Zuma.

He added that Mbeki, Mabandla and Maduna might face criminal charges *1 if the court confirmed Judge Nicholson's ruling of improper interference in the case against Zuma.

With acknowledgements to Karyn Maughan and Cape Argus.