Publication: The Star Issued: Date: 2007-08-29 Reporter: Tania Broughton Reporter: Karyn Maughan

Appeal Judges Wipe The Smile Off Zuma's Face

 

Publication 

The Star
Date

2007-08-29

Reporter

Tania Broughton, Karyn Maughan

Web Link

www.thestar.co.za

  

Jacob Zuma may have entered the Supreme Court of Appeal with a spring in his step, but he left it legally bruised and no longer certain of stalling the state's relentless digging into his financial affairs.

Three of the Bloemfontein court's senior judges on Tuesday led the charge against Zuma's counsel, Kemp J Kemp, SC, slamming him for "vague submissions" that they said had no basis in law.

Although it was the state appealing against an order that its raids on Zuma and his attorney, Michael Hulley, were conducted with unlawful warrants, it was Kemp who ended up facing a marathon grilling.

Under almost unceasing questioning, a visibly flustered Kemp submitted that people being searched by the authorities must understand the search warrants used against them so that they could "physically resist" if their rights were being violated.

Commented Judge Robert Nugent: "I don't understand that proposition."

Later he said: "The warrants should be sufficiently clear to be able to be challenged in court, not in a fisticuff."

Judges Nugent, Ian Farlam and Tom Cloete appeared unimpressed with Kemp's suggestions that the state might have taken privileged documents when it raided Hulley's offices - potentially resulting in any future case against Zuma being rendered a mistrial.

Pointing out that Hulley was an experienced criminal attorney, the judges questioned his claims - made to the Durban High Court - that he had not known he could refuse to hand over the documents because they might be privileged.

"I must say that I find that incredible," Judge Farlam said.

The state claims the disputed documents were simply Zuma's financial records, once kept by his former financial adviser and now jailed fraudster Schabir Shaik.

The judges also took issue with the fact that no one from Zuma's legal team asked for copies of the documents so they could ascertain which, if any, were privileged.

The state wants the court to declare the warrants lawful, enabling it to use the documents to prepare for a possible prosecution of Zuma and French arms company Thint.

A decision by the Supreme Court Appeal on this issue is effectively what is standing between the state's final decision on whether to recharge the ANC deputy president.

On Wednesday the court was to hear an appeal by Thint against a Pretoria High Court ruling that the raids on its premises were in fact lawful.
Related Articles

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


The cows are coming home to roost.