ANC president Jacob Zuma maintains that he is innocent of all the charges the NPA intends putting back on the court roll on Wednesday, according to his application to the Constitutional Court.

"Mr Zuma maintains his innocence on the charges," read the papers filed on Tuesday, which aim to challenge a Supreme Court of Appeal ruling on whether he should have been entitled to representation when a previous decision not to prosecute him was changed.

His lawyers plan to press on with the argument that he was entitled to make representations before the decision to reverse a 2003 decision not to charge him was taken in December 2007.

The 124-page submission dissects the meaning of Section 179 (5) d of the Constitution which deals with the right of a person about to be prosecuted to make representations, and focuses on other sections which deal with who is responsible for making prosecutorial decisions.

In the complex argument they submit that the SCA misinterpreted this section to mean the right to make representations applied only to decisions taken by Directors of Public Prosecutions (DPP), and by people for whom they are responsible.

They argue that the person to whom they are responsible is the NDPP and that only the NDPP could make a decision to reverse an earlier decision.

"The Applicant respectfully contends that the SCA erred in its interpretation of Section 179 (5) (d) of the Constitution," the papers read.

They also content that the SCA erred in rejecting Pietermaritzburg High Court judge Chris Nicholson's finding that Zuma had a legitimate expectation that the NDPP would make his representations before reversing the 2003 decision not to prosecute him.

Zuma, the ANC presidential candidate, believes the right to be heard is "recognised as a core element of the concept of natural justice and the rule of law".

He also argued that the case was of public interest and would impact on the functioning of the NPA.

His lawyer writes that if successful, the representations would have obviated the need for a very expensive trial.

He also submits that the SCA misunderstood the relevance of background "political issues" that Nicholson pronounced on and calls the judgment "fundamentally flawed" and misplaced.

The judges of the Constitutional Court will now have to decide whether to give Zuma the right to present his case to them.

In the meantime, his lawyers and NPA will return to the Pietermaritzburg High Court on Wednesday where the NPA plans to place his and arms company Thint's corruption trial back on the court roll.

The case is linked to allegations of bribery in an arms deal, which saw Zuma's former financial adviser Schabir Shaik convicted.

Before Shaik's trial the NPA said it did not have a winnable case against Zuma but after the trial it pressed charges against him.