Cape Town — The end is in sight for the marathon corruption trial of former Western Cape premier Peter Marais and former environment MEC David Malatsi.

This comes after Marais (pictured), who was expected to begin testifying in his own defence yesterday, declined to do so.

Their hearing, in the Bellville Regional Court, was postponed until September 26 by magistrate Andre le Grange.

Final argument is to be heard then and judgment is expected soon afterwards.

The trial of Malatsi and Marais began in November 2003 in the George Regional Court, after the two were arrested by the Scorpions.

They have been charged with corruption after allegedly accepting R400000 on behalf of the New National Party to speed up approval for the development of the R550m Roodefontein golfing estate near Plettenberg Bay.

The money was allegedly paid by Italian Count Riccardo "Rocky" Agusta after the two had visited the estate with him in April 2002. Agusta entered into a plea bargain with the state, admitting he had bribed the two, and paid a fine of R1m, before leaving SA shortly before the trial of Marais and Malatsi started.

Adv Bruce Morrison, for the state, concluded his cross examination of Malatsi yesterday.

After Malatsi closed his case, Adv Craig Webster, who represented Marais, then closed his case without putting Marais on the stand.

Malatsi and Marais have pleaded not guilty to charges of corruption.

Marais said yesterday his decision not to testify was taken on Webster's advice.

"My counsel, you will recall, asked for my dismissal in December already (at the initial closure of the state's case), and my counsel advised me that it would not be necessary for me to go into the box, and I accepted my counsel's advice, that's all.

"I think the legal system in SA is so designed as to know how to arrive at the truth, and I have full confidence in the justice system. My fate is in its hands.

"I still say that I'm innocent of any wrongdoing, and I'll have to wait for the judgment now."

Malatsi, when asked how he felt, said: "Obviously, anybody should feel confident that a judgment would go in their favour.

"This is a criminal case, and, as such, it means they must have proved their case beyond any reasonable doubt. And many doubts were raised in this court," said Malatsi.