Letters

Christine Qunta’s column, Raid on Zuma lawyers comes as a wake-up call (September 2) refers. Our courts have made pronouncements on the issue of attorney-client privilege, which exists by virtue of the provisions of the Bill of Rights.

In the case of Heiman, Maasdorp & Barker versus the Secretary for Inland Revenue in 1968, the question arose whether the Secretary, using statutory authority, could demand specified documents from attorneys, Heiman, Maasdorp & Barker.

The court unequivocally upheld the principle of nondisclosure of confidential information, stating: “This well-established rule is to be found throughout our jurisprudence and has repeatedly been described as sacrosanct and inviolate.”

Even under our discredited legal system during apartheid, our courts have diligently protected attorney-client privilege. A judgment of the former Appellate Division of the Supreme Court’s decision in the criminal case of the State versus Mushimba in 1977 found that there had been a serious breach of confidentiality because a member of the staff of attorneys who defended the accused leaked confidential information to the security branch. The court found that this constituted a miscarriage of justice and set aside the convictions.

If the raid by the Scorpions indeed breached the confidentiality of the relationship between Jacob Zuma and his lawyers, it could have very serious consequences and a mistrial is a distinct possibility. This will be for the courts to decide and ultimately the Constitutional Court will have to pronounce on the nature and ambit of attorney-client confidentiality.

As Qunta correctly points out, the raid must serve as clarion “wake-up call” for the leaders of legal profession, who must urgently seek clarity from the state, since attorney-client privilege is fundamental to their professional tasks and role as legal representatives.

With acknowledgements to George Devenish and the Business Day.