Jacob Zuma's lawyer, Michael Hulley, has denied that it was Arthur Fraser, the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) Deputy Director-General, who gave him the secret recordings that helped set his client free, although he declines to say who did.

"I've never met the guy. I didn't know that such a person existed. This is the first time I've heard his name," Hulley told The Sunday Independent in response to media reports that it was Fraser who had leaked the so-called incriminating evidence that constituted what acting National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) chief Mokotedi Mpshe last Monday called such a gross "abuse" of the legal process as to render the high-profile case invalid.

When asked whether it was possible that it was Fraser who had facilitated the material through an intermediary, albeit unknown to Hulley, his response was equally emphatic. "Categorically, no. Not even that possibility existed. There is no causal link, not even in the most obtuse way."

He says he knows who passed on the "information" and that it clearly was not Fraser. Who it was, however, he will not say. "It is information that was given to us by at least two different sources," Hulley claims. "But it was given to me in confidence. That was made clear at the time that (it) was given."

His reason for not disclosing his sources, be they within the NIA or not, "is because this is a confidential matter that I don't want to talk about. And that's not there to mask illegality. I'm as mindful of that as anyone else."

However, it is precisely that issue that a number of legal minds and opposition party chiefs have begun to question in recent days, as it is a breach of the law for a private citizen to be in possession of classified state information. It is also illegal for that information to be passed on to a member of the public by the state if the due court process has not been followed.

On Thursday, Dianne Kohler-Barnard of the Democratic Alliance announced her party's decision to lay charges against Hulley for what she claims is illegal possession of stolen goods.

"As such, we will charge him with illegally distributing intercepted communication," she said. "Firstly, we have laid a charge of theft, alternatively possession of stolen property, against Hulley, relating to his alleged illegal possession of tape recordings that are the property of the state."

"That implies an assumption of what the sources are," Hulley said in response.

The Durban-born lawyer says he did his homework when the controversial material came to light and is confident that he did not breach any law by taking it into his possession. "Certainly not. Absolutely not."

Although he agrees the inquiry might be a legitimate one, "it doesn't detract from what we were able to substantiate".

The secret recordings capture conversations between Leonard McCarthy, the former Scorpions boss, and Bulelani Ngcuka, the former NPA head, among others, discussing when the charges against Zuma should be reinstated - which, according to Mpshe, amounted to such political damage that he was forced to collapse the case.

However, political meddling to one side, it was also Mpshe who said on Monday that, in his view, the case over which he had presided was still solid and winnable.

"Every prosecutor goes to court thinking they have a strong and winnable case," Hulley retorts.

The secret recordings also to one side, Hulley believes that even if Mpshe's decision had hung on the other representations alone, it would still have swung in his client's favour.

"Yes, I think equally so."

Those representations comprised written submissions that addressed "the substantive merits" of the charges of corruption, money laundering, fraud, racketeering and tax evasion against Zuma, followed by oral representations "which amplified our written representations and where we alluded to other information that we had", the lawyer explains.

However, it was motive that won out over merit in the end and led Mpshe to drop the charges because of the improper conduct on the part of the NPA, and not because the ANC president no longer had a case to answer.

"You know, if you can win a war using a bomb, why must you send the infantry in? To become more tactical, you need to deal with it properly," Hulley says. "And I think that the improper conduct was such an alluring proposition to deal with the matter decisively, as opposed to dealing with the substantive merits. Everything else paled into insignificance."

That the prosecutors who worked on the case all these years might think otherwise is something Hulley will not entertain: "The prosecutors have a purpose and a role," Hulley says. "So, too, does a national director (of public prosecutions). I think he (Mpshe) has given leadership and direction. And I think that's why he's the only functionary who can take that decision.

"If it was meant to be outsourced to someone else, the legislation would have said (to) outsource it to the prosecutor tasked with dealing with it. But it wasn't, because of the onerous responsibility that comes" with a decision of the magnitude that Mpshe took this week.

That Hulley's client may still have a case to answer should the DA be successful in its application for a judicial review is another aspect of the fallout from this week's decision that the 43-year-old attorney finds hard to comprehend.

"The upshot of all of it would be that the NPA would be entrusted with the prosecution, if they (the DA) are successful in their application. After all the things I've heard the DA say, about Mr (Willie) Hofmeyr, about Mr Mpshe, I just ponder over why you would want them to be the functionaries to take on a prosecution of Mr Zuma when the prosecuting authority is a discredited institution," he points out.

For now, "it's over, with a few loose ends that need to be tied up".

Yet, as the lawyer who helped set Zuma free, he doesn't see it as a major victory.

"It's not a victory that one sticks your chest out with and says, 'We've kicked them in the teeth'. It's a victory with a good dose of sadness. This trial has torn through people's lives in the most intimate of ways, and I don't know that, after eight years, it's a victory if you are able to demonstrate that you should never have taken this course of action."

More than anything, he says, it is "an opportunity to reflect, in my view, on how things ought not to be done, more than to reflect on a legal victory".

He signed Zuma on to his books in 2005 and, since then, has become as much of a household name as the man who has just walked free. Though, like Zuma's, Hulley's may also be regarded as a bittersweet claim to fame.

"People, particularly now in this election frenzy, will choose to rubbish people that they assume have had a hand in the fact that Jacob Zuma is no longer facing criminal charges. As unfortunate as it is, it's nothing that takes me by surprise."

• This article was originally published on page 4 of The Sunday Independent on April 12, 2009