The Scorpions have returned all material seized from former deputy president Jacob Zuma’s attorney following a Johannesburg High Court judgment on Friday that declared the raids unlawful.

This ruling is a blow to the Scorpions’ efforts to build a strong case against Zuma and shows the unit cut legal corners to find extra information on him.

Zuma has been charged with two counts of corruption and is expected to appear in court next month.

The ruling could also give ammunition to those who want the Scorpions to be incorporated into the South African Police Service.

The African National Congress (ANC) Youth League said the decision cast doubt on the Scorpions’ future work.

The ANC’s alliance partners, the South African Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade Unions, also said Friday’s ruling reinforced the perception that Zuma would not have a fair trial and that the unit’s behaviour over the past five years had left much to be desired.

The Scorpions were taken by surprise when attorney Julekha Mahomed instituted her challenge in the high court two weeks ago and asked for a postponement to prepare replying papers.

Head of the crime and justice programme at the Institute for Security Studies, Anton du Plessis, said the mere fact that the investigations involved Zuma, required that the Scorpions prepared thoroughly.

“They were not prepared for the type of challenge that they encountered from Mahomed.

“It is a concerning judgment for them at a time when there is a commission looking into the future role of the Scorpions,” Du Plessis said.

Judge Ismail Hussain said the Scorpions’ application for a search and seizure warrant from Transvaal Judge-President Bernard Ngoepe did not make full disclosure of the facts.

The unit failed to alert the judge to the potential breach of attorney-client privilege by describing Mahomed as Zuma’s “personal legal assistant”.

“The applicant (for a warrant) must make full disclosure of all material fact to the judicial officer. Anything less is unacceptable,” the judge said.

“The national director of public prosecutions is not immune from these requirements.”

Hussain said legal professional privilege had been established under SA’s laws, and Mahomed had not been described as a practising attorney when the unit applied for a warrant.

“Proper functioning of our justice system depends on confidential communication between lawyers and their clients.

“Even in the darkest days of apartheid, our laws recognised the client-attorney privilege.”

Hussain said warrants obtained by the national director of public prosecutions contained no safeguards to protect attorney-client privilege.

“The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) did its utmost to act within the law in obtaining the warrants, and conducting the searches,” NPA spokesman Makhosini Nkosi said.

With acknowledgements to Ernest Mabuza and the Business Day.