Publication: The Natal Witness Issued: Date: 2006-02-07 Reporter: Nivashni Nair Reporter:

Zuma Smiles as Judge Calls Scorpions Raids ‘Improper’

 

Publication 

The Natal Witness
Date 2006-02-07

Reporter
Nivashni Nair

Web Link

www.witness.co.za

 

Former Deputy President Jacob Zuma remained solemn throughout yesterday’s court hearing into the legality of last year’s Scorpion raids on his residences and lawyer Michael Hulley’s premises.

But a smile appeared on his face towards the end of the day’s proceedings when presiding Judge Noel Hurt said that he regarded the manner in which the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) addressed attorney/client privilege as improper.

“Subject to what you may say to me, I do not regard this as proper conduct from someone who is about to prosecute,” Hurt told NPA’s legal representative, Marumo Moerane.

Hurt then told Moerane that he will reserve the rest of his comments for his judgment and prompted Moerane to continue submitting his reasons as to why the NPA ignored the attorney/client privilege when Hulley’s office was raided last year and had seized documents relating to the Zuma corruption trial.

The NPA’s defence is that the search and seizure warrants were lawful and that Hulley had not claimed legal professional privilege, and therefore the documents could be confiscated.

However, Kemp J. Kemp SC, acting for Zuma and Hulley, told the court yesterday that the NPA had simply ignored the provisions set out in Act 29 (11) of the National Prosecuting Act that states that a person is entitled to claim privilege and then hand over the documents to the registrar for safekeeping.

Furthermore, he added, the NPA was fully aware that Hulley would claim privilege yet carried out their “planned operation where about 200 NPA personnel armed and dressed in black *1 simultaneously raided 22 premises including the offices of Zuma’s attorney”.

“The respondent’s attitude towards privilege is callous and sinful *2. They have given no reason as to why provisions of Section 29 (11) of the Act were not adhered to. They have given no reason as to why provisions of Section 29 (11) of the act were not adhered to. They have given no reason as to why Zuma was not given the opportunity to consider his position. Their response is simply, “We don’t have to”, Kemp told the court.

He hinted that it seems as if the purpose of the raids was to establish what Zuma’s defence will be in his corruption trial, which is set to take place in July.

Peter Olsen, also acting for Zuma, and Hulley submitted that the search warrants were “too wide”.

He said it was almost like the warrants were a case of “one size fits all” and the NPA went in with the attitude of “let’s see what we can get”.

Furthermore, he explained, there were certain items that were seized that are not relevant to Zuma’s upcoming trial. Such an item, he said, is Zuma’s late wife Kate’s diary, which was seized from his son.

Olsen told the court that there was no need for the Scorpions to raid the home, which was occupied by Zuma’s son, his daughter-in-law and Zuma’s intellectually challenged teenage daughter. He said the diary was sentimental and the raid had a negative effect on the family.

The NPA’s representation, Moerane, is expected to provide a detailed response on why legal professional privilege was not upheld during the raids.

Meanwhile, Zuma the once charismatic deputy president who always posed for photographers and stopped to speak to the press, kept a very low profile during yesterday’s court appearance.

VIP guards kept a close eye on him and photojournalists, whom they pushed out of the way when Zuma tried to sneak in through the courthouse’s side entrance.

Before Zuma arrived at court, the VIP guards ordered that only five journalists be allowed to sit in on the court proceedings. This caused a dispute outside the courthouse, where three other journalists were trying to gain entrance.

Former controversial reporter Ranjeni Munsamy, who was also apparently Schabir Shaik’s spin doctor, intervened and they were allowed entry.

With acknowledgements to Nivashni Nair and The Natal Witness.


*1  Doubtless, an important part of the Applicant's submissions.

*2  Corruption is callous and sinful.

Search and seizures with a court order might be executed irregularly or even unlawfully, but sinfully?

Me thinks that possibly the grounds for complaint maybe too wide.