A Durban High Court judge on Tuesday queried Jacob Zuma's defence team over its efforts to stop the retrieval of documents from Mauritius that might relate to arms-deal corruption.

Judge Jan Hugo asked Zuma's advocate Kemp J Kemp: "If a person professes his innocence, then why go to all these lengths to prevent the evidence being obtained?"

Kemp replied: "We think it is important. This is not like a fight between two champ fighters. This is more like Stalingrad. It's burning house to burning house."

Hugo was hearing a National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) application to allow a letter of authorisation asking authorities in Mauritius to release documents to be executed, pending the outcome of an appeal in September.

Judge Philip Levensohn granted a "letter of authorisation" for the documents in April, but Thint and Zuma obtained leave to appeal against the letter being executed. The appeal is expected to be heard before the Supreme Court of Appeals (SCA) on September 21.

Kemp told Hugo: "If I can keep it [the evidence] out, it is my duty to keep it out. If it advances the accused's battle plan, why should we give that up?"

Both legal teams -- that of Zuma and that of French arms manufacturer Thint -- argued that the granting of the execution order would not be "just and equitable".

Documents
The documents the NPA seeks include the diary of former Thint chief executive Alain Thetard. They allegedly prove there were meetings held where Zuma, Durban fraud convict Schabir Shaik and Thetard met to discuss a R500 000-a-year bribe.

Kemp said: "If the order is granted, all they will have scored is four months."

Both he and Thint's advocate Nirmal Singh said the granting of the execution order would result in legal action in Mauritius, which "would be all for nothing" if Thint and Zuma won their appeal in Bloemfontein.

Singh contended the state had not told the court the letter of authorisation also directed officials in Mauritius to obtain statements in the form of affidavits from those connected with the documents.

The International Cooperation in Criminal Matters Act directs that those statements have to be accepted by a trial court. Therefore, Thint would not have the option of contesting the admissibility of the affidavits. "How do you undo that?" he asked.

State prosecutor Billy Downer said the admissibility of the documents can be argued in a trial court if it is decided to prosecute Zuma and Thint. He said neither Zuma nor Thint has suffered prejudice, and the state is entitled to get all the evidence it requires.

He said it is in the public interest "to look to the courts to get things moving". The Thint and Zuma camps would argue the state is not allowing their clients a speedy and fair trial.

Kemp countered: "I can't recall ever asking for an adjournment. I can recall that the state has, sometimes unsuccessfully."

Suspects
Downer gave no indication that the state has decided to prosecute Zuma and Thint. He said the state is "entitled to cogent evidence to allow it to make a decision on whether to prosecute". "It is not disputed that there is an investigation. We know it [the Mauritian documents] is relevant to a relevant investigation."

He repeated the state's contention that there is no case pending against Zuma or Thint. "They're suspects. No more and no less. Would a court allow a suspect to stop an investigation?"

Downer said he would be amenable to an execution order with conditions allowing for the documents to be held "under lock and key" until the outcome of the appeal in Bloemfontein.

Zuma's "ambitions cannot be taken into account", he said.

The defence, in its papers, has repeated the "tired phrases of conspiracy that does not strengthen their case. There is not a shred of evidence [of a conspiracy]."

"They are really trying to prevent us from using this damning, damning evidence against them," Downer said. "We want those documents and to say that we don't need them is ingenious."

Hugo said he will announce his ruling "in time". -- Sapa