Durban — The state violated former deputy president Jacob Zuma’s rights to privacy and silence when the Scorpions raided his homes last year, the Durban High Court heard yesterday.

Zuma began his long year of gracing the benches of courts around the country yesterday when attorney Michael Hulley argued for the return of documents seized during controversial dawn raids on Zuma’s and his own homes and offices last August.

Kemp J Kemp, who will also represent Zuma during his rape trial in Johannesburg next week and in his corruption trial set down for Durban or Pietermaritzburg in July, yesterday told Judge Noel Hurt the raids had trampled on the constitutional right to attorney-client privilege and his client’s right to remain silent.

Immaculately dressed in a black pin-striped suit, Zuma remained impassive throughout the day-long proceedings. Police protection services were in force and barred most people who tried from entering court.

Only five media tickets were granted and a handful of friends and supporters were allowed into the small courtroom, raising ire among those journalists left waiting in the rain.

Several hours after the hearing began, more journalists were allowed in.

Kemp claimed the warrant should have clearly outlined the mandate for the search on August 18 and the onus lay with the state to tell Zuma and Hulley about their right to privilege.

Another Zuma lawyer, Michael Smithers, claimed the boundaries for the search and seizure had been “too wide”, in that they included diaries and photographs belonging to Zuma’s late wife .

Yesterday’s proceedings arose from an application in October to challenge the legality of the raids and recoup seized documents.

The National Prosecuting Authority is appealing a similar successful application by Johannesburg attorney Julekha Mahommed, from whom papers were seized as part of the raids.

Mahommed testified during last year’s fraud and corruption trial of Zuma’s financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, about a revolving credit loan agreement between Zuma and the businessman.

Kemp argued that the section of the National Prosecuting Act under which the raids had been granted affected Zuma’s right to silence since the state had already charged him with corruption.

In terms of the law, Zuma was obliged to answer any questions posed during the raid, which Kemp argued should be applicable only when someone was under suspicion, but not charged.

In response, state advocate Marumo Moerane said the law restricted the context and the subject matter about which an accused could be questioned, including anything that would be incriminating. The Constitution also provided for client-attorney privilege, Moerane said.

“However, the act provides for the investigation of serious criminal activities and the objective of prosecuting in the most efficient and effective manner,” he said.

Moerane said the raid was the best method for the state to get the documents as experience showed it was ineffective to summon someone suspected of fraud to answer questions.

The case resumes today.

With acknowledgements to Nicola Jenvey and the Business Day.