In a hearing that could determine Zuma's future as president, the Supreme Court of Appeal will have to decide whether the National Prosecuting Authority's 2009 decision to drop corruption charges was legally sound and not politically induced.

In what could turn out to be a landmark case, the DA has turned to the court, arguing that then acting national director of public prosecutions Mokotedi Mpshe's decision to drop the charges against Zuma was unconstitutional and invalid.

But, in his court papers, Zuma questions the DA's intentions and motives.

Zuma was let off the hook on corruption charges relating to alleged bribes he received after he made presentations to the National Prosecuting Authority, including the controversial spy tapes and other documents.

The court at this stage has to rule only on whether the DA has legal standing to bring the case to court and whether it should have access to the records.

However, vehemently arguing for the court to dismiss the matter when it comes before five judges next Wednesday, Zuma says the case is much bigger than just his personal financial affairs - it could be a national embarrassment.

Zuma says that, if the DA is successful in its application, sensitive and confidential information in the authority's records about other people and companies would also be exposed.

"[Zuma] has indicated why the DA's access to the records would gravely infringe and impinge on the privacy and dignity of a number of persons, including himself."

Zuma also argues that not only would his image be tarnished but so would that of South Africa and the prosecuting authority.

"What remains in the case, in the absence of a full record, is a costly and time-consuming exercise in futility save to tarnish the image of the country, the president and the National Prosecuting Authority," Zuma's responding papers read.

The prosecuting authority's decision not to prosecute Zuma paved the way for him to become the country's president in May 2009.

The DA has, over the years, argued that Zuma's prosecution would be in his own interests and would enable a court to rule whether he was guilty or innocent, or if the case should be withdrawn.

In his papers, Zuma, however, accuses the DA of being on a points-scoring exercise.

He says the public interest arguments the party advanced were weak and a smoke screen for the party to gain political favour.

"It is clear that the DA's interest is that a [successful] prosecution would remove Zuma as the president and score considerable political points in the process."

Zuma further contends that Mpshe used his discretion in terms of the prosecution policy and that he did not exceed his authority when taking the decision to withdraw the corruption charges.

In an impassioned plea, the president asks that the DA be denied access to the submissions he made to the authority, which led to the charges being dropped.

"These parts of the record cannot be disclosed for various reasons related to privilege, confidentiality, and the fact that these parts of the record contain private information obtained through coercive powers of the directorate."

Presidential spokesman Mac Maharaj yesterday refused to comment, saying the matter was sub judice.

DA MP James Selfe said his party was "extremely confident" that the judges would consider the case on its merits and not on political grounds.

"Just on the principles of law, the case is clear-cut," said Selfe.

In its papers, the DA insists that Zuma and the national director of public prosecutions' arguments are "clearly an attempt to use legal loopholes to frustrate the review of a decision which was fundamentally flawed".

They argue that the charges involve "issues of governance at the highest level in a matter of overwhelming public interest".

"The potential for a loss of confidence in organs of state concerned with crime prevention and prosecution are manifest unless the legality of the decision is tested in open court."

Of grave concern to the DA, it says, is the fact that Zuma and the prosecuting authority believed that the authority could engage in off-the-record private dealings with accused persons leading to the discontinuation of a prosecution, and that no one could subsequently compel the authority to produce the record of those secret dealings.

In essence, the DA says, it could amount to a situation in which "an accused could bribe a prosecutor to drop charges but it would not be possible to establish this because the evidence of the secret deal is immune from judicial scrutiny".