Let us join the call to drop charges against ANC president Jacob Zuma, pictured, since every time he is set to have his day in court weird allegations are made in the same way the so-called "Special Browse Mole Report" was compiled.

Let us join the call to drop charges against ANC president Jacob Zuma, pictured, since every time he is set to have his day in court weird allegations are made in the same way the so-called "Special Browse Mole Report" was compiled.

Needless to say that Zuma is the only person who has been subjected to prosecution for so long without a trial in the history of the democratic South Africa.

Now sinister forces are hellbent on peddling the allegation that Zuma has a relationship with Cape Judge President John Hlophe, who is said to have attempted to influence the outcome of his three key cases in the Constitutional Court.

All of this creates the suspicion that Hlophe thought he could influence judges sitting in Johannesburg while he is in Cape Town.

Yet he has no power to do so. Fiction, isn't it?

Be that as it may, the judges who made the claims did not follow normal process but published it before particulars of the complaint or the names of the accusers were formally received.

The whole Hlophe saga is being used to incite factions to cast aspersions on Zuma's suitability as the ANC presidential candidate for the 2009 general elections.

This ostensibly in order to create the impression that the finding of the Constitutional Court - to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Appeal upholding controversial search and seizure raids carried out by the Scorpions on the property of Jacob Zuma and his attorneys - would be influenced somehow.

It does not need much imagination to work out that the ruling of the appeal court was not founded on sound legal reasoning within the context of everyday legal practice.

Morgan Phaahla, Ekurhuleni