French arms company Thint on Monday filed papers in the Pietermaritzburg High Court arguing that the state should drop the corruption case against it because it was impossible for them to have a "fair trial".

Thint's attorneys filed papers for a permanent stay of prosecution based "on an infringement of their rights to a fair trial".

They said it would be impossible for them to have a "fair trial" because there was a perception that the Supreme Court of Appeal was already "convinced of their guilt" before their trial could even take place *1.

The stack of papers was handed to the court before noon.

The accused in the case are ANC president Jacob Zuma, Thint Holdings (Southern Africa) (Pty) Limited, and Thint (Pty) Limited.

They face charges of racketeering, corruption, and money laundering.

Thint allegedly paid Zuma R500 000 a year in exchange for protection from investigations into the country's multi-billion rand arms deal.

The payment was, according to charges faced by the company, allegedly facilitated by Zuma's former financial adviser Schabir Shaik.

None of the accused have pleaded to the charges yet.

Zuma is expected to file his own application for a permanent stay of prosecution in the same court on May 18.

In the notice of motion, counsel for Thint -- Shamin Rampersad and Associates -- said the decision by the National Director of Public Prosecutions to re-indict Thint was "unconstitutional and invalid".

The company also wanted to interdict the state "from proceeding with the prosecution of the second and third accused on "any other charges which might arise out of... the charges...".

The papers were accompanied by affidavits from Pierre Moynot, the managing director and chief executive officer of Thint Holdings Southern Africa and Thint (Pty) Limited, Christine Guerrier, Alain Thetard, Robert Driman and Advocate Ajay Sooklal.

Referring to extracts from the judgment of an appeal that came before the Supreme Court of Appeal on September 25, 2006, Moynot said there was a reasonable perception "created in the minds of the second and third accused that the SCA is already convinced of their guilt, and has effectively convicted them in their absence, despite their trial... not yet having commenced, and that it would be impossible for this Honourable Court to disabuse its mind of the... findings by the SCA".

He said the state in the SCA judgement "proved that Thomson" (which falls under Thales) corruptly offered "to give a benefit which was not legally due to a person, being Zuma...".

"The state, therefore, proved that Thomson committed an offence..." and was "guilty of these offences", Moynot said.

"Accordingly, it is submitted the second and third accused's fair trial rights have been infringed in a most serious fashion and it will be impossible for them to receive a fair trial," he continued.

Part of the infringement arose from "a breach by the state" of an agreement concluded between the state and Thint (Pty) Limited.

Another infringement to a fair trial arose "out of what has transpired in relation to the [Schabir] Shaik matter," Moynot said in his affidavit.

He stressed that the allegations of corruption were also "mischievously used" and had affected both Thint groups, which fell under the Thales international group.

Search and seizures carried out on the homes of some of its employees had resulted in "widespread negative publicity both in South Africa and abroad *2".

"The reputations of the parent company, Thales International in Paris, and its subsidiaries and associated companies in South Africa, Mauritius and in other parts of the world came under the spotlight and, as a result, became severely and adversely affected.

"The allegations of corruption with which the searches, seizures and investigations were associated seriously affected some of the business endeavours of the accused... particularly in relation to the submission of tenders *3."

Thint also wants the state to pay the costs of the application.

With acknowledgements to Sapa.