The Democratic Alliance (DA) will continue to seek a high court review on the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) decision's to drop corruption charges against President Jacob Zuma, party leader Helen Zille said on Tuesday.

Zille said NPA head Mokotedi Mpshe's suggestion that a judicial review on the dropping of the charges "might embarrass the President" had strengthened the DA's resolve to continue with the matter.

"We will continue to seek a high court review of the NPA's decision to shield the president from having to answer in court to over 700 counts - ranging from corruption to racketeering - that we believe were unlawfully dropped before the election," Zille said in a statement.

Mpshe's statements were contained in an affidavit in answer to the DA's application in the High Court in Pretoria, to review the decision by the NPA to withdraw charges against Zuma shortly before the election on April 22 this year.

"The NPA's decision, which the DA believes was unlawful and unconstitutional, gave Zuma a legally unencumbered run to the Presidency," Zille said.

"In his replying affidavit... Advocate Mpshe has argued that the DA's request for judicial review, should it go ahead, would 'lay bare' the President's 'highly sensitive' personal record.

"If the review application were to be successful Mpshe would need to expose the full record of evidence behind his decision to drop the charges."

Zille said Mpshe's affidavit "actually serves" to strengthen the DA's case for a review.

"Mpshe's contention, put simply, is that a situation where he may actually need to explain his decision with evidence is undesirable for both him and the President.

"For that reason, he argues, it should be avoided. He conflates the personal details of the president with the evidence which is relevant to the case; attempting to use the one as a veil for the other.

"Such logic defies the most basic principles of law. Legal decisions must be made on the weight of evidence, after having been tested by a court."

Zille said this principle could not be abandoned for any person, "especially not for the politically powerful".

"If it were so, then the President would be truly above the law."