Judge Chris Nicholson granted the state leave to appeal in the Durban High Court on Wednesday against the September 12 judgment which invalidated charges brought against ANC president Jacob Zuma.

Nicholson said the case was a complex one and that certain sections of the constitution had never before been argued and "occasioned me much anxious deliberation".

On September 12 Nicholson ruled that the State's decision to prosecute Zuma was unlawful because the state had failed to take representation from Zuma. In that same judgment he alluded to the fact that there was a strong possibility of political interference and said that a commission of inquiry should be established into the multi-million rand arms deal that had led to Zuma initially being charged.

"The primary question of whether the matter was of a civil or criminal nature was raised over in the sense that it had never been considered before and occasioned me much anxious deliberation.

"In addition the legal question as to whether the provisions of section 179(5)(d) of the constitution and the corresponding provisions in the National Prosecuting Authority Act were applicable to the applicant in the main application was a very complex issue which had never been considered before by the courts," Nicholson said.

However, Kemp J Kemp for the Zuma team said during argument that he did not believe another court would rule differently on Nicholson's September 12 judgment.

"The fact that legal issues are involved and whether they are complex or not is no reason to grant leave to appeal," he said.

While there were no masses of Zuma supporters, Court L was packed to capacity with journalists straining to hear every last word of the deliberations. Zuma himself was not at court as he is out of the country.

Kemp said the National Prosecuting Authority's refusal to an October 2007 request for Zuma to make representations was understood not to be a refusal, but that Zuma's request for representation was premature.

Referring to the allegations of political interference, Kemp said: "We never tried to establish the truth of these allegations."

He said that all the court needed to do was prove the existence of the allegations.

However, Trengove said: "If those allegations were put up, not to establish the truth, but merely to establish that such allegations had been and are being made, then with respect the court made a fundamental error because it proceeded to inquire into the truth and make findings
on the truth of those allegations."

Nicholson, who conceded that there had been no oral argument on the issue when the case was heard in August, said: "I also made orders on the two applications to strike out allegations of political interference in the papers.

"Detailed reasons have been given, both in the notice of appeal and the heads of argument, why the court erred in making such findings," he said.

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.

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

Zuma's attorney Michael Hulley declined to speak to the media after proceedings.

It is not immediately clear when the matter is likely to come before the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein.