By Prakash Naidoo and Jacqui Pile

For someone who once said he wanted his day in court, Jacob Zuma seems intent on delaying it as long as possible. The landmark supreme court of appeal (SCA) judgment earlier this month gave the Scorpions permission to use crucial documents seized in raids on Zuma’s premises and from his legal team, which has opened the way for him to be recharged.

But Zuma’s lawyer, Michael Hulley, has confirmed that they are planning to appeal the SCA’s decision to the constitutional court, a process that can take anything from six months to a year.

A source in the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) close to the case says it is unlikely the NPA will move to recharge Zuma with a constitutional court case pending.

“It’s not unusual for plaintiffs to conjure up a constitutional issue in an attempt to appeal the ruling to the constitutional court,” says a senior advocate. “It’s unlikely that Zuma would be satisfied with a ruling from the SCA.”

A constitutional court ruling is unlikely to end Zuma’s bid to stop a corruption prosecution being brought against him. However, once an indictment is served, Zuma is almost certain to challenge that and the merits of the case against him, and these will have to be resolved before a trial can start. That, too, can drag on for at least another year.

With the ANC’s elective conference in Limpopo just a fortnight away and national elections due in mid-2009, Zuma could well be president of SA before anything close to formal charges are laid against him.

If found guilty, “no-one may be regarded as having been sentenced until an appeal against the conviction or sentence has been determined, or until the time for an appeal has expired,” says the advocate.

The state requested and was granted permission to extend its investigation and seek assistance from authorities in Mauritius and the U K. Zuma challenged the Mauritian order, and lost on appeal. He still has appeal options on both these rulings.

In terms of the constitution, a member of the national assembly cannot stand for election to the position of president if they have been convicted of an offence and sentenced to more than 12 months’ imprisonment.

Zuma could still be elected president as his appeal will not have been determined, even though he would have been convicted by the lower courts.

If Zuma were convicted by a lower court and the constitutional court upheld the conviction, a two-thirds majority of the national assembly could remove him from office on the grounds of a serious violation of the constitution or the law, or serious misconduct. This would be the first time that a South African president was removed from office.