Legality of raids questioned

Jacob Zuma's legal fate - and his possible political aspirations - will be determined by how the Supreme Court of Appeal rules on his latest battles with the state.

While the National Prosecuting Authority has been loath to spill the beans on if and when it will recharge the ANC deputy president, it has categorically stated that its decision will only be made once the legality of its August 2005 raids on Zuma and his attorneys have been cleared up once and for all.

It was during these raids, which were carried out shortly after Zuma's former financial adviser Schabir Shaik was convicted of fraud and corruption, that the Scorpions seized 93 000 documents relating to Zuma's financial affairs.

Investigators allege that some of these documents, which form the basis of the state's massive forensic audit into Zuma's financial affairs, show that he received suspect payments from Shaik and other prominent business people even after Shaik was charged.

Last year Pietermaritzburg High Court Judge Herbert Msimang slam-med the State for putting Zuma on trial when it was not ready to proceed with the case.

In its written submissions to the Bloemfontein court this week, the State confirmed that it had taken the judge's criticism to heart.

"The National Director of Public Prosecutions will accordingly not decide whether to charge Zuma and (French arms company) Thint again until after this (appeal) court has determined the status of the evidence seized in August 2005," the State's advocates said.

This is the very issue that the court has been dealing with over the past two days. And its importance to Zuma cannot be understated, particularly in the light of the ANC leadership elections at the end of this year.

But, if yesterday's hearing into the validity of the 2005 raids is any indication of the court's future decision, Zuma may be pursuing his presidency aspirations in the shadow of an im-pending prosecution.

While it is dangerous to predict how judges will ultimately rule, it was clear from the grilling the Supreme Court of Appeal meted out to Zuma's counsel. Kemp J Kemp SC. yesterday that they had problems accepting his submissions that the warrants were unlawful.

Kemp argued that the disputed warrants should have been more intelligible, so that those being searched would understand whether their rights were being violated and could "physically resist" such a violation.

Mr Justice Robert Nugent appeared perplexed by this submission and later commented that unlawful warrants should rather be challenged in court and "not in a fisticuff".

Kemp also faced the embarrassment of being unable to provide solid legal backing for some of his arguments, despite repeated requests from the judges.

Asked by the judges if his argument was just based on his opinion, Kemp replied: "It is simply our submission"

Judge Ian Farlam reserved judgment yesterday on the State's warrant appeal.

French arms company Thint will appeal today against a Pretoria High Court ruling that the state's raids on its offices were lawful.

With acknowledgement to Cape Argus.