State's Tax Probe a 'Sham' to Bolster Case for Raids - Zuma

JOHANNESBURG: Two years after 300 Scorpions investigators raided his homes and his lawyers' offices, former deputy president Jacob Zuma hopes the Supreme Court of Appeal will accept his view that the operations were a "breathtaking invasion" of his privacy.

His legal team have disclosed for the first time that the search warrants allowed the Scorpions to seize Zuma's diaries for the years 1995 to 2005.

Zuma, his former lawyer Julekha Mahomed and present attorney Michael Hulley are opposing the Scorpions' attempt in the Supreme Court of Appeal to overturn a Durban High Court finding that the Scorpions' raids in August 2005 were unlawful.

Justice Noel Hurt ordered that the Scorpions return all items seized and all copies made of these.

Zuma's counsel,Kemp J Kemp, SC, argues in papers that Judge Hurt was correct in finding that the warrants were "hopelessly overbroad".

He said the warrants enabled the Scorpions to seize "every document which may assist in locating … (Zuma's) whereabouts, meetings and engagements" in 1995 to 2005.

"Thus, if he dined with a friend, or had a romantic liaison, documentation evidencing that fact should be seized and scrutinised. This is a breath-taking invasion of privacy and violation of dignity."

Kemp said the warrants also exposed "to search and seizure every document relating to any financial transaction Zuma ever concluded with anyone".

Zuma is preparing himself for court battles that are to determine whether he is charged for corruption and the state's investigation into his financial affairs leads to prosecution.

He considers the state's fraud and income tax investigation of his affairs a "sham".

His legal team argues that the state needed these "sham" claims to justify the raids. It says the state's explanation of its tax probe is "irrational".

Kemp says in papers: "The alleged crime investigated is this: Zuma took bribes from (his former financial adviser Schabir) Shaik … If Zuma did not declare these as income, he defrauded the fiscus or contravened the Income Tax Act.

"The National Prosecuting Authority wants to investigate every single financial deal of his to establish this."

If sums received were bribes, what prospect would there have been of Zuma's declaring these as income, Kemp asked.

"Why and how would a corrupt politician (for that is the assumption) do so? A sense of honour to the fiscus? And how would he still be in parliament? The prospects must be zero."

Zuma's tax returns were readily available. The National Director of Public Prosecutions could have asked Zuma if he had noted Shaik's payments as income on his tax returns.

The Scorpions' tax investigation was a "stratagem to bolster the warrant application and extend the scope of the warrants", Kemp said.

"It was an abuse of the powers of the National Prosecuting Authority to achieve a purpose for which these warrants were not intended.

"A warrant was sought and obtained that allowed every facet of Zuma's life … to be placed under a magnifying glass to find anything that would harm him."

Kemp said investigators had also used the raids to gain access to Zuma's possible defence against the corruption charges he faced in 2005, following Shaik's conviction for fraud and corruption. The state's access to such material would be a clear violation of Zuma's rights to a fair trial rights.

Shaik was found, among other offences, to have solicited payment of R500 000 for Zuma from French arms company Thint, in exchange for Zuma's protection during the arms deal inquiry.

The state's appeal is to be heard late this month, as is Thint's appeal against a court finding that searches of its offices were legal.

With acknowledgements to Karyn Maughan and Cape Times