Appeal could now delay trial

Johannesburg: "Fantastic, fantastic - and you can quote me on that," said Anton Steynberg, deputy director of public prosecutions in KwaZulu-Natal and the deputy prosecutor in the forthcoming Jacob Zuma graft trial, yesterday.

He was reacting to the judgment by Pretoria High Court Judge Ben du Plessis, who ruled yesterday that the search warrants used by the Scorpions last year to search the Pretoria offices of Thint, the local arm of the French armaments manufacturer Thomson/Thales, were valid.

Judge Du Plessis also ruled that the Scorpions therefore did not have to return any of the documents or other items taken during a search and seizure raid on August 18 'Fantastic, fantastic - and you can quote me on that,' says deputy director of public prosecutions .

The Scorpions raided Thint's offices looking for material in preparation for the scheduled July 31 trial of former deputy-president Jacob Zuma and Thint.

Last year, Zuma was charged with corruption and fraud, and Thint with corruption, following the conviction of businessman Schabir Shaik of Durban, Zuma's former financial adviser.

Thint is alleged to have agreed with Shaik, with whom it was involved in a joint venture, that it should pay Zuma for "protection" related to investigations into the multi-billion rand arms deal.

Thint, as well as its managing director, Pierre Moynot, applied last week to have the search warrants, signed by Judge Bernard Ngoepe, judge president of the Transvaal, declared invalid and for an order that everything seized by the Scorpions to be returned.

Kessie Naidu, SC, for Thint argued that the search warrant had been "unlawfully and improperly" obtained because not all the "material facts" - such as, for example, that Thint might become one of the accused after August last year - had been disclosed to Judge Ngoepe. Judge Du Plessis found, however, that the facts in question had been "correctly conveyed" to the judge president.

Judge Du Plessis also found that the Scorpions had not acted in bad faith by failing to indicate clearly that Thint had legal representation and that, therefore, some of the documents seized by the Scorpions might be protected by "legal privilege".

Judge Du Plessis accepted the Scorpions' version that the Thint secretary did not claim legal privilege for documents in her computer at the time of the raid.

Last year, other warrants issued by the judge president - for raids on the Johannesburg premises of Juleka Mahomed, a former Zuma attorney, and on the Durban offices and premises of Zuma and Michael Hulley, Zuma's attorney - were declared invalid by the Johannesburg and Durban High Courts, respectively.

Judge Du Plessis, noted, however, during the hearing, that these two raids were clear infringements of legal privilege since they involved raids on lawyers' offices, whereas Thint's offices were not legal ones.

Judge Du Plessis also did not accept that the "fact" that Thint had co-operated in the past with the Scorpions should have been told to the judge president. "Common sense dictates," said Judge Du Plessis, "that the person investigating [Thint's] guilt must bear in mind the possibility that it might not be willing to furnish to the investigators all the relevant evidence."

Judge Du Plessis also rejected Thint's argument that the terms of the warrant in its case had been "over-broad". The judge said that the warrant did specify that items seized would have to be related to the forthcoming court case.

Thint's legal team indicated before the judgment that, if the finding were to go against them, they would appeal the matter. This was noted in a letter last week from Steynberg, who wrote to everyone involved with the Zuma/Thint trial, that this was one reason why he believed the trial should be postponed from July 31 to February 2007.

This was because, whichever way Judge Du Plessis were to rule, the other side would appeal - a process that could take till the end of the year.

With acknowledgement to Jeremy Gordin and Cape Times.