Publication	Business Day
Date	2006-02-08
Reporter	Nicola Jenvey
Web Link	www.businessday.co.za

DURBAN — Durban High Court Judge Noel Hurt caught the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) on the back foot yesterday when he questioned why the Scorpions had ordered a raid on former deputy president Jacob Zuma’s homes, rather than ask his attorney for documents relating to Zuma’s financial affairs.

Zuma and attorney Michael Hulley are challenging the legality of the search in August of the former deputy president’s houses in Johannesburg and KwaZulu- Natal as well as Hulley’s offices.

Advocate Kemp J Kemp said the move violated Zuma’s right to privacy and silence *2.

State advocate Marumo Moerane acknowledged during his argument the search warrants had been “much wider than the specific nature of the documents sought”, but that the state needed to net Zuma’s financial records.

The state had not seized Hulley’s office computers or client files as that “would’ve contained privileged information”, he said.

This prompted Hurt to question why the state had chosen a search and seizure over a more amicable request for information *1.

He also said Zuma’s financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, had “a sanguine approach to life” that allowed him to make payments on the former deputy president’s behalf while fighting a criminal trial linked to those actions.

He reserved until next Wednesday his decision on whether the state’s seizure of the documents was illegal.

The decision has a significant bearing on the evidence that can be offered during Zuma’s corruption trial starting on July 31.

The state had already charged him with corruption after Shaik’s conviction, which Kemp claimed meant the state had sufficient evidence on which to prosecute.

He also dismissed any arguments from state advocate Richard Salmon that the charge sheet had not yet been finalised.

The NPA swooped on Zuma’s Johannesburg and Nkandla residents, the Union Buildings in Pretoria, Tuynhuys in Cape Town and the Marine building in Durban, as well as Hulley’s office and that of Johannesburg attorney Julekha Mahommed, in August.

The state argued that Hulley had not followed due process in applying for some of the documents to be declared privileged and that these were subject to a court ruling before they could be entertained for evidence.

If the documents are disallowed, the state may only use evidence gathered during its investigation of Shaik, which ended in 2002, and nothing gathered that reflected Zuma’s financial position until last year.

Meanwhile, the media won a victory yesterday when access limits imposed by the police’s VIP Protection Services were lifted.

The hearing took place in a larger court room, with Hurt promising courts open to the media. “Our policy is strictly one of an open door,” he said.

---

*1  Real-life experience shows that these are seldom amicable nor do they lead to gaining anything useful.

*2  In any case, why would Zuma allow access when his counsel is arguing "right to privacy and silence".

This is a fallacy of logic called a non-sequitur.