The credibility of one of Jacob Zuma’s lawyers was dealt a blow this morning.

A radio station transcript from November 14 shows that the former deputy president’s attorney, Michael Hulley, said Zuma knew nothing about the police rape allegation against him – several days after Zuma had, in fact, made a statement to the police denying guilt.

Hulley was present when Zuma handed his statement to police in his Nkandla home on November 10.

In a case which has pitted Zuma and Hulley’s credibility against that of two senior police officers, it is expected that the transcript,entered into evidence in the Johannesburg High Court, will be a central part of the State’s efforts to undermine any evidence given by Hulley.

One of the central points of dispute is where the alleged rape occurred on November 2.

The woman alleges it was in the guestroom of Zuma’s Johannesburg home; Zuma says the sex was consensual and took place in his bedroom.

Commissioner Norman Taoie and Detective Superintendent Bafana Peter Linda both alleged Zuma had pointed to his guest room as the “alleged crime scene”.

According to Taoie and Linda, Zuma – in Hulley’s presence – had also told them that “nothing happened” in his own bedroom.

Zuma’s legal team said the two officers were lying, perhaps prompted by the high-profile nature of the case.

The State had been expected to call a number of witnesses this morning, but instead introduced the radio transcript.

In an interview given to Cape Talk Radio on November 14 – hours before the Scorpions raided Zuma’s home – Hulley told presenter Mike Wills that Zuma had been shocked by the rape claim in the media, that Zuma denied the claim and was considering legal action against the papers that had published it.

The following excerpts are contained in the transcript.

Wills: “What has been the response of the deputy president (sic) to the stories that ran yesterday?”

Hulley: “Well, obviously one of shock and I think obviously a denial on his part against the allegations in total.”

Wills: “Now, was there any incident, was there anything that led to this, to this report?”

Hulley: “Certainly not … you know, the first that Mr Zuma heard of the allegations was when he was contacted by a journalist saying that such a report has been made.”

Wills: “What have the police told you? Have they told you there is no complaint, there is no investigation? Or are they telling you that they cannot tell you?”

Hulley: “We made enquiries at the branch level as well as at provincial level and all of those … have … been … rather unsuccessful to the extent that they cannot give us details as to the charges that they might have brought.”

Wills: “So when you say ‘unsuccessful’, are they saying there is no investigation? Or are they saying they cannot help you?” Hulley: “There is no information that is forthcoming, so therefore I do not want to say that there is no investigation. I think they would be better placed to make such an actual comment.”

Wills: “Now, if there is absolutely nothing here, I assume that the deputy president (sic) will be suing?”

Hulley: “Yes, most certainly, you know, most certainly so.”

Wills: “So there is no incident. The woman has been named in at least one newspaper, does he know this woman? “Is he aware of any possible situation here that has given rise to this?”

Hulley: “No, there is none, save to say that both her and her family are longstanding friends of Zuma.”

Wills: “So, what is your theory, where does the story come from and why?”

Hulley: “You know it is difficult to actually say, as you would have noticed some of the media say that it is part of an ongoing conspiracy, that it’s easy to draw that inference, but in the absence of a factual basis, I think one should stay clear from saying so.”

Zuma’s defence agreed to allow the transcript to be handed in as evidence, but his counsel, Kemp J Kemp SC, indicated the defence may consider a challenge to its admissibility depending on the State’s intended use of it.

After the closing of the State’s case this morning, Kemp also confirmed that the defence would bring an application under the Criminal Procedure Act for Zuma’s discharge.

In it the defence will argue that the prosecution has not presented a case that Zuma has to answer.

With acknowledgement to Karyn Maughan, Jeremy Gordin and Cape Argus.