An application by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to secure documents from Mauritius would not jeopardise Jacob Zuma's trial rights, a Mauritius Supreme Court judge said in a judgment handed down on Monday.

The African National Congress president had not "shown any good cause .. to intervene in the (NPA's) request for mutual assistance," and claims that his trial is being "politically-motivated" needed to be raised in a South African court, Mauritian Judge Rehana Mungly-Gulbul ruled.

Mungly-Gulbul rejected Zuma's application to intervene in the mutual assistance proceedings, but "I accordingly authorise the applicant (Zuma) to be present at the proceedings in the request for mutual assistance."

NPA wants the originals

The NPA is seeking to obtain the originals of 13 documents used to convict Schabir Shaik, his former financial adviser. French arms manufacturer Thales International was fighting to prevent the documents from leaving Mauritian shores.

The 13 documents held in Mauritius include the 2000 diary of former Thint chief executive Alain Thetard which detailed a meeting between him, Zuma and convicted businessman Shaik.

At the meeting, a R500 000 a year bribe was allegedly discussed.

Copies of these documents were accepted as evidence in the trial that ended with Shaik being convicted and sentenced to 15-years imprisonment for corruption and fraud by Judge Hilary Squires in 2005.

In the papers filed in the Pietermaritzburg High Court on 28 December, Zuma was summoned to appear in the court on 4 August.

He faces 16 charges in total — one count of racketeering, two counts of corruption, one count of money laundering and 12 counts of fraud.

The two South African subsidiaries of Thales International (formerly Thomson-CFS) — Thint Holding (Southern Africa) Pty Ltd and Thint (Pty) Ltd — each faced a charge of racketeering and two counts of corruption.

The documents are in the possession of Mauritius' Independent Commission Against Corruption and following a 2001 application by Thales, the documents according to a 2003 ruling cannot be "communicated to anyone or any authority" unless a court order is obtained in Mauritius.

Mungly-Gulbul said the Mauritian attorney general's application following the letter of request issued by Durban High Court Judge Phillip Levinsohn in April last year was in accordance with the 2003 ruling.

She pointed out that Zuma had opposed the issuing of the letter of request.

The R30bn arms deal

"One must not lose sight of the fact that the request in the main case in which 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'.

"Can this person claim that he has a right to intervene in the proceedings before the Judge in Chambers 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."

She said that Zuma had the right at trial to raise objections to evidence presented before the courts, but at the same time noted that copies of the documents being sought by the NPA had been accepted as evidence in Shaik's trial.

Mungly-Gulbul said Zuma could not claim "breach of his right to privacy or invasion of his property" as the documents had not been seized from him, but from Thales International and Thetard.

"There is nothing to suggest that because of the request for mutual assistance before this jurisdiction, he will be deprived of a fair trial."

"Whatever bona fide belief that 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."

Attempts to reach Zuma's lawyer Michael Hulley were unsuccessful.

NPA welcomes development

NPA spokesperson Tlali Tlali, confirming that the NPA had been informed of the ruling, said: "We welcome this development which is a positive outcome for us and the process as a whole in resolving any and all other outstanding legal hurdles."

Had the Mauritian court ruled in favour of Zuma's application it would not "have had a negative impact or consequences on the NPA's decision to institute criminal proceedings against the parties concerned.

"The NPA remains resolute on its decision and would like to have an opportunity to present its case before court," Tlali said.

Sapa