Publication: Sunday Independent Issued: Date: 2006-07-23 Reporter: Jeremy Gordin Reporter:

Moynots Sue NPA for R1m over Illegal Raid by Scorpions

 

Publication 

Sunday Independent
Date

2006-07-23

Reporter

Jeremy Gordin

Web Link

www.sundayindependent.co.za

 

Corruption, or allegations of corruption, may be part of the world of real-politik and therefore understandable - but sacre bleu! - rifling through a person's underwear would appear to be completely unacceptable.

Bijou Francoise Moynot and Pierre, her husband, have sent a letter of demand to the value of R1 020 000 to the National Prosecuting Authority for having searched their home and particularly for having found it necessary to look through Bijou's lingerie drawer.

Moynot and her husband - the managing director of Thint, the French arms manufacturer due to stand trial with Jacob Zuma, deputy president of the African National Congress, for corruption on July 31 - have sent a letter of demand to the NPA asking for a shade more than R1 million in damages.

The Moynots claim they were embarrassed, humiliated, suffered mental and emotional anguish and had their privacy invaded as a result of the raid on their Pretoria home last August by members of the Directorate of Special Operations (the Scorpions or DSO).

The search warrant was authorised by Bernard Ngoepe, the judge president of Transvaal.

The Moynots claim that Scorpions members rummaged through their personal belongings - including, but not limited to, Bijou's lingerie - and also made a mirror image of Bijou's personal notebook computer.

"The search and seizure operation was conducted in full view of the neighbours and attracted wide local and international media coverage," the Moynots said in their letter of demand.

"The conduct of members of the DSO was such to impute that [we] were dishonest and that [we had] acted in contravention of the law *1 and were criminals *2," the letter continued.

In further papers, Bijou said the DSO female officer who searched her drawer commented "appreciatively" on the quality of Mrs Bijou's (sic) underwear.

The August 2005 raid was part of a countrywide search by the Scorpions for evidence for use in the forthcoming trial of Zuma and Thint.

In March, in an answering affidavit after Thint and the Moynots challenged the validity of the search warrant, the DSO conceded the search and seizure at the Moynots' home had been unlawful - and in April the DSO returned all the items seized from the Moynot home.

Earlier this month Pretoria high court Judge Ben du Plessis ruled that the search warrants used by the Scorpions last year to search the Pretoria offices of Thint were valid. He ruled that the Scorpions therefore did not have to return any of the documents or other items taken on August 18. He did not have to rule on the validity of the warrants related to the Moynot home because the Scorpions had already conceded these were "unlawful".

Mrs Moynot said the making of the mirror image of her computer resulted in the data on it becoming corrupted and inaccessible.

She said she was a professional artist and that all her private and business records had been stored on the computer. She had, as a result, suffered damages.

The amount claimed by the Moynots comprises R1 million for damages suffered by the couple in respect of their reputations, dignity and privacy; and R20 000 for losses suffered by Mrs Moynot in respect of her business.

The NPA acknowledged that the Moynots had noted an intention to institute a civil claim.

With acknowledgements to Jeremy Gordin and Sunday Independent.


*1       The upcoming trial may exonerate or convict Thint of unlawfulness or criminality. As Mr Moynot represents Thint in the trial and represented Thint as the times of the alleged questionable conduct, maybe this claim is premature.

Mrs Moynot's complaint concerning appreciative comments on her underwear maybe a bridge too far for a windfall award of R1 million, incidentally the same amount as her husband's company bribed his co-accused in the trial, a fact already proven in a previous criminal trial.