The trial of Schabir Shaik had not yielded enough evidence to prosecute African National Congress deputy president Jacob Zuma, the state contended in the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein yesterday.

“A more comprehensive investigation was called for,” said Wim Trengove SC, counsel for the state. He submitted that although Zuma’s former financial adviser was found to have given him money with corrupt intent, this did not mean Zuma received the payments with the same intent.

“It’s thus wrong to say there was enough evidence.” It was necessary for the Scorpions to raid four of Zuma’s homes and his attorney Michael Hulley’s office and seize 93000 documents on August 18 2005.

Zuma listened as the state appealed against judgments on the controversial search and seizure operations on his houses and Hulley’s offices.

The state wants the court to overturn the Durban High Court’s ruling that set aside the warrants granted by Transvaal Judge President Bernard Ngoepe in 2005.

Zuma and Hulley contested the raids, and the Durban High Court declared the warrants unlawful and illegal, and ordered the documents to be returned.

The state wants the court to order the seized documents to be sealed and locked up in case Zuma is recharged with corruption.

Trengove told the full bench that Shaik’s trial had not yielded enough evidence to prosecute Zuma, and that was why the state wanted to obtain more information by way of warrants.

Warrants, and not subpoenas, were necessary to obtain documents from Zuma and his attorney as it was feared that subpoenas would put evidence at risk of being destroyed or concealed, said Trengove.

The case against Zuma and French arms company Thint was struck off the roll last year after Judge Herbert Msimang of the Pietermaritzburg High Court refused the state’s application for a postponement.

The state wants the appeal court to determine the legality of the search and seizure operations. Altogether three appeals will be heard by the court in Bloemfontein.

On Monday, the court reserved judgment on the application by the state for the overturning of the Johannesburg High Court finding that the raids on the home and offices of another Zuma attorney, Julekha Mahomed, were illegal. Thint will appeal against a Pretoria High Court ruling that the Scorpions’ search of the company’s offices was lawful.

Trengove denied the assertions by Zuma and Hulley in papers submitted to court that the intention to seize Hulley’s documents was to understand Zuma’s defence’s strategy.

He also disputed Zuma’s and Hulley’s contention that the state’s application to conduct search and seizure operations at the homes of Zuma should not have been invoked as Zuma was at the time an accused person.

Kemp Kemp SC, representing Zuma and Hulley, said warrants were documents that were meant to defend individuals against the power of the state. He said that if his clients succeeded in their appeals, they would like to have the seized documents returned.

“What is required of the judge in chambers (issuing the warrants) is that he must be satisfied that anyone who reads the warrant would know the limits of the warrants,” Kemp said.

Kemp said the warrant issued for searches at Zuma’s homes were far too broad and intruded on his privacy. “What we have here is a warrant-less search. The person conducting the search does not know what his limits are.

“The warrant must establish what the limits of the search are.”

However, Kemp conceded that nothing taken from Zuma was taken in conflict with the search warrant. The court reserved judgment. With Sapa

With acknowledgements to Ernest Mabuza and Business Day.