ANC deputy president Jacob Zuma speaks to a member of his legal team at the Pietermaritzburg High Court yesterday. He attended a hearing at which the state sought a letter asking Mauritius to release the originals of certain documents it needs to prosecute Zuma for corruption.

THE state in the Jacob Zuma trial yesterday responded to allegations that they are approaching the court with “unclean hands”.

They insist that the original documents they require from Mauritius to pursue the corruption case against Zuma and arms company Thint, were not obtained illegally. It had been claimed by the defence that the search and seizure raids were unlawful.

State advocate Billy Downer SC said the copies of the documents the state have are in their possession legally. However, legal representatives for Zuma and Thint contend that the Mauritius Supreme Court order, dated October 5, 2001, did not authorise copies of the seized documents to be given to the South African authorities.

State wants letter

The state wants Judge Phillip Levinsohn to sign a letter requesting co-operation from the Mauritian authorities for the release of the documents. Zuma and Thint vigorously oppose this.

Zuma and the current Thint chief executive, Pierre Moynot, attended the hearing.

There were only a few Zuma supporters in the courtroom in the morning. After the lunch adjournment, numbers increased slightly but then dwindled before the day ended.

The state is in possession of copies of the documents but requires the originals, 13 documents in all, as part of its continuing investigations.

Downer said that if any of the respondents are charged and go on trial, the admissibility of the documents will be argued.

“Admissibility is best promoted by obtaining the best evidence available. In this case the best evidence is the original documents that are required from Mauritius,” he said.

The documents relate to an alleged meeting between Alain Thetard, former chief executive of Thint in South Africa, jailed businessman Schabir Shaik and Zuma. They include the diary of Thetard, which allegedly notes a meeting between him, Zuma and Zuma’s former financial adviser, Shaik, in March 2000. The state believes that at this meeting Thint’s alleged bribe to Zuma was brokered.

Copies of the documents were made after the search and seizure raids and later used at Shaik’s trial. In the interim, Thint secured a court order in Mauritius, preventing their disclosure to any other party.

One of the reasons that Zuma and Thint’s case was struck off the court roll last year was because investigations into the case were incomplete.

Downer said the respondents are using “argument, supposition and rumour” to oppose the state’s application.

He said the legality of the raids has never been contested and the copies of the documents used in Shaik’s trial were accepted by the presiding judge.

Shaik is serving a 15-year jail term after being convicted of fraud and two counts of corruption.

After the state concluded with its arguments Zuma’s advocate, Kemp J. Kemp SC, handed Levinsohn further heads of argument totalling 69 pages. Levinsohn was visibly annoyed that this was handed to him so late, and told Kemp that it bordered on discourtesy.

Kemp argues today.

With acknowledgements to Sharika Regchand and The Witness.