Jacob Zuma would have been paid R20 million if he had quit as deputy president in 2003‚ his lawyer has said in an affidavit‚ while reiterating that there was a political conspiracy against Mr Zuma in the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). In responding to the Democratic Alliance’s (DA’s) case that the NPA’s decision to drop corruption charges against Mr Zuma was irrational and unconstitutional‚ lawyer Michael Hulley said the "spy tapes" relied on by former acting national director of public prosecutions (NDPP) Mokotedi Mpshe were not the only basis for the decision.In his 166-page affidavit filed on Thursday‚ Mr Hulley challenged two "fundamental flaws" in the DA’s case. The tapes were part of confidential representations by Mr Zuma’s lawyers‚ he said.Yet the DA had based its case solely on the tapes — recordings of phone conversations between former Scorpions head Leonard McCarthy and former NDPP Bulelani Ngcuka‚ which Mr Mpshe said had shown the timing of Mr Zuma’s 2007 indictment was politically manipulated.The DA had accepted the confidentiality of the representations‚ and had to live with that choice‚ he said. The tapes also had to be seen in the proper context — a long-running campaign to discredit Mr Zuma and stymie him politically.The second flaw in the DA’s case was its dependence on the prosecuting team’s belief (which Mr Mpshe had confirmed) that the case against Mr Zuma was strong and had not been tainted by Mr McCarthy’s actions. But Mr Hulley said Mr Mpshe’s decision was not just one of policy. It was also based on the merits of the case‚ as there was a likelihood that Mr Zuma would apply for a permanent stay of prosecution‚ which could have been successful.Mr Hulley said that former president Thabo Mbeki and former justice minister Penuell Maduna had asked Mr Zuma to resign — "purportedly based on a huge case against him"."If Zuma left quietly‚ he would not be prosecuted and he would be well looked after financially (a R20m amount was mooted)."But Mr Zuma had been told — by then-NDPP Mr Ngcuka — that "there was nothing in the case against him"‚ said Mr Hulley‚ and refused to resign.Mr Hulley said the DA had focused on the manipulation of the timing of the charges against Mr Zuma in the run-up to the African National Congress’s (ANC’s) elective congress in Polokwane. But this was only one incident of manipulation. There was also the 2003 announcement by Mr Ngcuka that the NPA would prosecute Schabir Shaik but not Mr Zuma‚ despite a prima facie case against him.That was later found‚ by the public protector‚ to be a breach of Mr Zuma’s rights.Mr Hulley also referred to strategic leaks to the media‚ and the Browse Mole operation — "a top secret but illegal investigation" of Mr Zuma‚ which illegally accessed his bank records.Mr Hulley said the leaks to the media had influenced "even the most senior of judges".He was referring to the Supreme Court of Appeal’s embarrassing mistake when‚ in a judgment‚ it parroted that a trial court judge had found there was "a generally corrupt relationship" between Mr Zuma and Mr Shaik. The statement was based on incorrect reporting as the judge in Mr Shaik’s trial had made no such finding.Mr Hulley portrayed Mr McCarthy as "an extremely powerful figure who controlled the investigation and prosecution of Zuma"‚ countering the DA’s assertion that Mr McCarthy’s role was largely irrelevant because it was Mr Mpshe who made all the relevant decisions.The DA is still to file a replying affidavit. But in a statement‚ DA federal chairman James Selfe said Mr Zuma’s affidavit now hinged on the representations. But "whatever these representations may contain is irrelevant because for six years the NPA and Mr Zuma himself clung to the argument that the prosecution against him was a conspiracy"‚ said Mr Selfe.Mr Mpshe discontinued the prosecution of Mr Zuma on corruption‚ fraud and racketeering charges in 2009‚ clearing the way for Mr Zuma to become president of SA after he was elected ANC president in December 2007.The court battle between the DA‚ the NPA and Mr Zuma‚ which had been mired in legal scuffles for six years‚ has now begun in earnest. Thursday’s affidavit followed that of the founding and supplementary affidavits of the DA and a response from the NPA two weeks ago‚ which now deal with the central issues of the case. - RDM News Wire, BDLive..