Durban: Jacob Zuma will begin the first of his legal battles this morning when his lawyers and attorney Michael Hulley argue in the high court here for the return of documents seized from them by the Scorpions in controversial raids last year.

Advocate Kemp J Kemp, who will also represent him in his rape trial in the Johannesburg High Court next week and in his corruption trial in either Durban or Pietermaritzburg in July, will begin argument this morning before Judge Noel Hurt.

Much of the argument will focus on technical issues concerning the jurisdiction of the court, the authority of the Scorpions to apply for the search warrants and the issue of privilege.

The widely publicised raids on the homes and offices of Zuma, Hulley and others associated with Zuma took place in August.

In October, Zuma filed a notice of his intention to challenge the legality of the raids and to get back the seized documents. A similar application by Johannesburg attorney Julekha Mahomed was successful but has been taken on appeal by the National Director of Public Prosecutions.

On the issue of privilege, Zuma's lawyers will argue that there was an "abject failure" on the part of the state to observe attorney/client privilege.

They say this was not disclosed when the search warrants were applied for, no safeguards were put in place in the warrants and those carrying out the raids had not informed anyone of their right to claim privilege.

In papers with the court, Zuma's lawyers say the state was under duty to disclose to the judge issuing the warrants that as Zuma had already been charged with corruption, it was highly likely "if not substantially certain" that preparations for his defence would have already begun and privileged documents were at risk of seizure.

"No such disclosure was made ... we submit that this is fatal to the state's case."

It will also be argued that there was no history of the destruction of documents by either Zuma or Hulley.

Another issue is the constitutionality of the raids in that the state claims they were necessary to gain evidence on possible further charges against Zuma of tax evasion and non-declaration to parliament.

It will be argued that if these new offences were to be "genuinely pursued", then the raid should have been directed at Zuma's tax records at the SA Revenue Service and the actual declarations made to parliament.

"It is absurd to suggest that an operation involving 300 people planned over several weeks and probably costing hundreds of thousands of rands was launched to obtain this evidence," the heads of argument state.

With acknowledgements to Tania Broughton and the Cape Times.