Company, the MD of its SA office and his wife want search warrants 'wrongfully' issued last year declared null and void January 15, 2006

The Scorpions misled Bernard Ngoepe, the judge president of the Transvaal provincial division, more commonly known as the Pretoria high court, by not disclosing vital information to the judge when they applied for, and were given, search warrants in August.

This is the claim made by Pierre Moynot, the managing director of Thint (Pty) Ltd, the local arm of the massive French arms and electronics manufacturer, in the application that Moynot, Bijou Moynot, his wife, and Thint have brought in the Pretoria high court against the national director of public prosecutions, the investigating director: Directorate of Special Operations (the Scorpions), and Johan du Plooy, a senior special investigator of the Scorpions.

The three applicants have requested that all the items seized by the Scorpions from the Thint office and Moynot home in raids launched at 6am on August 18 2005 be returned, and that the search warrants, issued by Judge Ngoepe on August 12 and 15, be declared null and void.

It was abundantly clear, Moynot alleged, that the searches by the Scorpions of Thint and the Moynot home in August were merely a "fishing expedition"and that if the judge president had been correctly informed about certain facts, he might not have issued the search warrants, or not have issued such open-ended ones.

The Scorpions also allegedly infringed Moynot's wife's constitutional rights to dignity and privacy during the raids by, among other things, ferreting through her underwear and clothing and even examining her private correspondence.

Bijou Moynot, a professional artist who is not employed by Thint, told the court that "a female officer ... went through my underwear and commented on the high quality of the bras that were in my drawer and the number of shoes that I had in my wardrobe ... Needless to say, I felt extremely humiliated, more especially since there were male persons in my room while it was being searched and when my underwear was being commented upon by the female officer."

The Thint offices in Brooklyn, Pretoria, and the Moynot home in Water-kloof Heights, Pretoria, were searched and documents, objects and computer disks were seized by the Scorpions in connection with the scheduled July trial of Thint and Jacob Zuma, the former deputy president, on charges of corruption.

Zuma and Thint were charged by the national prosecuting authority following the verdict last year in the trial of Durban businessman Schabir Shaik.

Shaik was found guilty of having been in a "generally corrupt relationship" with Zuma, including having solicited a bribe from Thint on behalf of the former deputy president. (The supreme court of appeal subsequently granted Shaik leave to appeal.)

Thint and the Moynots are applying for the search warrants to be set aside for five reasons:

Since "material facts" were not disclosed to the judge president when the warrants were obtained, the warrants had been "unlawfully and improperly" obtained.

Moynot pointed out that Thint was well aware that it might be charged along with Zuma. It had therefore had legal representatives present throughout the Shaik trial (attorney Ajay Sooklal and Kessie Naidu SC), of whose presence the Scorpions were aware.

These representatives had duly reported to Thint. In other words, the Scorpions would have known that in a raid they would be seizing documents protected by attorney-client privilege, a factor that would have caused the judge president to think twice about issuing a warrant. But the Scorpions had not informed the judge president of this probability.

"[Thint] is obviously concerned about the prejudice ... caused to it by the disclosure to [the Scorpions] of the privileged documents ... stored in the hard drive [of Moynot's secretary]. ... Members of the prosecution team [in the forthcoming Zuma/Thint trial were] included among the investigators who were authorised to enter the premises ... The prosecution is therefore involved in the process of ascertaining what has a bearing on the investigation and what not."

The Scorpions also did not disclose to the judge president that a huge volume of the sorts of documents for which they said they needed to search had, in any case, been seized from, or handed over by, Thint in 2001 during the pre-Shaik trial search and seizure raids.

The terms and authority of the warrants allowed by the judge president were too wide.

Moynot said that Thint was involved in many private and confidential ventures unrelated to Shaik or Zuma, and that documents related to these were also seized. In the Moynot home, documents related to "every aspect of the private lives of [my wife] and [me]" were also taken, Moynot claimed.

"The inescapable conclusion [is] that the warrants ... were constructed without any ... consideration for [these] ... circumstances, [yet] I am advised ... that search warrants must be phrased with precision and exactitude. ... [The] invasiveness and absurdity [of the way in which the warrants were drafted] are manifest."

There was no, or insufficient, basis for the judge president to have allowed a search-and-seizure operation of the Thint offices or Moynot's home.

Moynot alleged that the Scorpions did not disclose to the judge president that "almost 30 lever arch files" of documents and computer disks had been surrendered in 2001. Second, no proof was offered that Thint would have refused to supply any documents requested by the Scorpions. Third, no evidence whatsoever was put before the judge president connecting Moynot with Thint or connecting him with the offences under investigation.

"I ... submit," said Moynot, "that [if] the judge president [had] applied his mind to the omission of any evidence linking me with [Thint], he would not have granted a search warrant ... [and that] the search warrant [should] be set aside on this basis alone".

There was no reasonable basis for believing that anything the Scorpions were looking for in terms of the warrant would have been in either of the places searched.

Following the seizures of 2001, Thint had moved its offices from Midrand to Pretoria, and it had also been "abundantly" aware that it might be charged as a result of the Shaik trial.

"It is improbable," said Moynot, "that [Thint] would retain any documents [that] might provide the slightest semblance of support for the state in implicating [Thint] in a future prosecution, assuming ... that such documents [even existed]."

Lastly, the warrants had been unlawfully, unconstitutionally and improperly executed because of the infringement of the Moynots' right to privacy and Bijou Moynot's rights to dignity and self-esteem. In addition, objects, books and documents had been seized without the investigators properly ascertaining whether they contained any information related to the investigation at hand. This too was contrary to the stipulations of the warrants.

The Scorpions have until January 30 to indicate whether they intend fighting the application.

With acknowledgements to Jeremy Gordin and Sunday Independent.