The National Prosecuting Authority on Monday filed its heads of argument in the Supreme Court of Appeal against a judgment that invalidated charges against ANC president Jacob Zuma.

Judge Chris Nicholson granted the state leave to appeal in the Durban High Court last month against his September 12 judgment.

In granting leave to appeal Nicholson said the case was a complex one.

Certain sections of the constitution had never before been argued and "occasioned me much anxious deliberation", he said.

On September 12, Nicholson ruled the State's decision to prosecute Zuma was unlawful because the state had failed to take representation from Zuma.

Zuma faced a charge each of racketeering and money laundering, two charges of corruption and 12 charges of fraud related to the multi-billion rand government arms deal.

He was charged in 2005, but the case was struck from the roll in 2006. He was recharged in December 2007.

The NPA said in papers on their submissions to the Bloemfontein court that the decision to prosecute Zuma was "a fresh decision" .

The decision was taken after the prosecution resulting from a decision by former NPA boss Vusi Pikoli was terminated by Judge J Msimang, who struck the case from the roll in September 2006.

It was thus not based on decisions taken by the NPA earlier.

The state was also expected to argue that Zuma did not establish "as a matter of fact" that he had any expectation of a hearing and if he had such an expectation it was wrong.

On the findings of political interferences in the matter by Judge Nicholson, the NPA submitted that it was not clear why these findings were made.

Judge Nicholson found that various ministers of justice had
improperly interfered with the NPA's decisions over the years, initially not to prosecute Zuma and later to prosecute him.

The NPA submitted that they would argue that the judge should not have made these findings because they were findings of facts never pleaded by anybody in the matter.

It goes further to say that the findings were irrelevant to the issues that were before the court, and it was "the product" of an unjustified analysis of the evidence.

It was not known by what date Zuma's defence team should file opposing papers at the court in Bloemfontein.

A court official said the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal(SCA) Judge Lex Mpati was currently considering how the appeal should be handled.

Mpati, in terms of the rules of the SCA, could decide whether an appeal application should be handled as a priority appeal.

In these circumstances a deviation from normal time limits in appeal matters could be followed.

NPA spokesman Tlali Tlali said on Monday the state had asked the SCA to look at the possibility of hearing the matter "as quickly as possible".

He said the reason for the request was because the matter was "very significant" in terms of public interest.