NPA maintains that information relating to mystery public figure isn't irrelevant

Among the 14 bags of documents seized from Jacob Zuma's former attorney are highly confidential files linked to an "overseas figure in public life" and he is desperate to get them back.

But, while attorney Julekha Mohamed claims the unknown individual is in no way related to the state's investigation into the ANC deputy president, the National Prosecuting Authority begs to differ.

Counsel for the state Wim Trengove SC yesterday denied that the Scorpions had taken "irrelevant" documents when it conducted its August 2005 raids on homes and offices belonging to Zuma, his attorneys and French arms company Thint.

And, he said, the fact that the disputed documents involved "other clients" did not preclude them from investigation.

Trengove - seemingly supported by Supreme Court of Appeal judges Robert Nugent and Ian Farlam was also not impressed by the argument made by Mohamed's advocate, Neil Tuchten SC, in which he claimed that Mohamed's "unrelated clients" had the right to have their private documents held by no one else but her.

Pointing out that Mohamed herself had admitted to suffering numerous burglaries at her offices, Trengove suggested that the disputed documents might well be safer if they were sealed and kept under tight security by a court registrar.

So sensitive are the "unrelated client" documents, Tuchten said, that the individuals involved did not wish to go to court to apply for their release, as doing so would involve the public release of their identities.

According to Trengove, however, Mohamed could make such an application on her client's behalf.

Trengove was also less than flattering about the state's views on Mohamed's credibility.

Mohamed who briefly testified in Zuma's rape trial first hit the headlines when she appeared as a defence witness for his ex-financial adviser and now convicted fraudster Schabir Shaik in 2005.

Testifying before KwaZulu Natal High Court Judge Hilary Squires, Mohamed claimed she had drafted a "revolving loan agreement" between Shaik and Zuma, which Shaik claimed was proof that his numerous payments to Zuma were loans, not bribes.

According to Trengove, this evidence took a knock when, under cross-examination, several contradictions emerged.

Most important of these was Mohamed's failure to produce the original of the loan agreement, because, she claimed, her computer had been stolen.

There was, however, no record of the theft.

Mohamed's testimony failed to convince Judge Squires, who found that the loan agreement was in fact a sham.

But, with criminal proceedings pending against Zuma and in an apparent effort to establish the truth, the Scorpions raided Mohamed's offices in search of the loan agreement or evidence relating to it.

Disputing the need for the state to raid her offices, Mohamed has argued in the appeal court that she had already testified about the agreement at the Shaik trial and had handed in her file on the issue.

In the High Court, the state was today due to try to challenge the success of Zuma and his attorney, Michael Hulley, in fighting the raids carried out on their homes and offices.

With acknowledgements to Tania Broughton, Karyn Maughan and The Star.