Would Jacob Zuma receive a fair trial after documents related to his legal defence were seized by the Scorpions?

This is the question that Judge Ismail Hussain asked when considering the urgent application by Zuma's attorney, Julie Mahomed.

Mahomed applied to the Johannesburg High Court last week to have the searches and seizures carried out on her home and office on August 18 declared unlawful.

Zuma, who was sacked as deputy president nearly three months ago, faces two counts of corruption and is due to appear in the Durban magistrate's court on October 13.

During arguments on Wednesday, Mahomed's advocate, Neil Tuchten, said it could have serious implications if attorneys' offices were raided on a regular basis.

Mahomed also alleged that it had not been disclosed to Judge President Bernard Ngoepe, who had signed the warrants, that she was a practising attorney with clients other than Zuma, and not merely his "personal legal assistant".

Mahomed applied for all her documents to be returned to her.

Hussain said he did not question the justification of the National Prosecuting Act, which allowed the national director of public prosecutions to obtain a warrant to search an attorney's premises. His main concern was with how the warrant had been obtained and how it had been executed. He questioned whether Zuma would have a fair trial in light of the seizures.

"What impact does it have on the question of (Zuma) receiving a fair trial if the director of public prosecutions is entitled to bring an application to search an attorney's office and search documents that have relevance to the defence?" he asked.

Advocate Marumo Moerane SC, who appeared on behalf of the director of public prosecutions and the investigating director of the Directorate of Special Operations, said searches were allowed by the law and had complied with the law.

Hussain said: "If the client knows that ... the director of public prosecutions can show up any time, what does that do? No one will want to consult with attorneys."

He also queried why the founding affidavit for the warrant did not state that Mahomed was an attorney practising in the high court.

Moerane denied that his clients had failed to disclose that Mahomed was an attorney. Hussain is expected to release his findings on Friday.

With acknowledgments to Nalisha Kalideen and The Mercury.