Reaction to Jacob Zuma's failed challenge in the Constitutional Court has been mixed, with the ANC saying that its president was "being persecuted rather than merely prosecuted".

Zuma and arms company Thint failed to have alleged evidence in his corruption trial quashed by the Constitutional Court yesterday.

The ANC said it respected the principle of equality before the law but added: "It (the judgment) has also fuelled doubts about his chances of receiving a fair hearing."

Cosatu said it respected the ruling, but had hoped for a different result. "We have also, in the past, voiced our discomfort at the comments by Constitutional Court deputy president Dikgang Moseneke regarding his views about Jacob Zuma. We hope that these issues did not sway the Constitutional Court judges in any way," it said.

In welcoming the judgment, United Democratic Movement leader Bantu Holomisa said it should teach Zuma that his delaying tactics were failing him.

DA leader Helen Zille said: "The ... dismissal of Jacob Zuma's challenges serves as proof that the highest court in the country can act without fear or favour."

ID president Patricia de Lille called for everyone - "especially the leadership of the ANC - to respect the independence of the judiciary and the judgment of the Constitutional Court".

Meanwhile, Zuma's bid to be-come the country's next president may not be affected by the criminal charges against him, even if he loses his bid to have the matter thrown out of the Pietermaritzburg High Court next week.

Zuma is to appear on Monday in an attempt to have both the charges against him and the actual indictment struck from the court roll.

Speaking to the Cape Argus this morning, Zuma's lawyer, Michael Hulley, stressed that he did not wish to disrespect the judicial process by speculating about potential implications of Pietermaritzburg High Court Judge Chris Nicholson's decision when he rules.

However, he said that if the ruling went against Zuma, they would quite possibly appeal against the decision, with due consideration of the merits of the judgment.

If they wished to appeal, they would submit an application to Nicholson, who would rule on whether it was possible that a court could come to a different decision. And if the judge granted leave to appeal, there could be a wait of up to six months for the Supreme Court of Appeal to hear this appeal.

Speculating even further ahead, even if the SCA similarly ruled against Zuma, Hulley said they had already filed notice with the Constitutional Court that they believed the matter would be important enough to warrant their attention, then a ruling could only be expected within a further eight to 10 months.

Hulley did not stress what this would mean for his client, but it is public record that the ANC wishes Zuma to become president in 2009 unless he has been found guilty and jailed. Zuma's possible pending appeals would thus still be in process and he would in all likelihood be sworn in.

In further reaction to the Constitutional Court judgement yesterday, SACP general secretary Blade Nzimande said he wasn't surprised by the ruling. "We expected this. The whole Judge Hlophe matter, we have said, was actually preparing us for this.

"This case will go down in history as the first political trial, post-apartheid," said Nzimande.

With acknowledgements to Shaun Smillie, Murray Williams, Sapa and Cape Argus.