Zuma goes to Constitutional Court to stop charges

JZ application might ensure he is not charged before ANC conference

Jacob Zuma has acted to remove the last major obstacle standing in the way of his rise to the ANC presidency.

Zuma launched a Constitutional Court challenge yesterday to key Supreme Court of Appeal rulings that cleared the way for the Scorpions to reinstate corruption charges against him.

The National Prosecuting Authority must now respond to his application by December 20 — the same day the ANC will elect its new leadership at its national conference in Limpopo.

Prosecuting authority spokesman Tlali Tlali was unaware of Zuma’s application late yesterday afternoon and said he was not in a position to comment on it.

He refused to say when a decision might be made on whether to charge Zuma a second time for corruption related to the arms deal.

Zuma has gone to the Constitutional Court after the recent ruling that declared legal and valid the search-and-seizure warrants used in raids on his home and on the premises of his lawyers.

He is also appealing against the lawfulness of a letter authorised by the Durban High Court asking Mauritian authorities to assist in the corruption investigation by providing documents related to the arms deal.

The documents seized during the raids and those held by the Mauritians are seen as crucial in the state’s case against the former deputy president should a decision be made to charge him again with corruption.

Among the documents in Mauritius is the diary of Alain Thetard, the former boss of French arms manufacturer Thint . A copy of it was used in the successful prosecution of Zuma’s former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik.

The diary is said to contain an entry detailing a meeting of Thetard, Zuma and Shaik at which a bribe relating to the arms deal was allegedly discussed.

In his Constitutional Court application, Zuma cites four rights which he believes have been trampled on: his rights to privacy, dignity and property, and to a fair trial.

In his affidavit, he states: “The applicant respectfully believes that search-and-seizure operations are, by their very nature, and especially where directed at a person’s home and office, highly invasive of especially the rights to privacy and human dignity.”

On the matter of attorney and client privilege, Zuma and his lawyer Michael Hulley slammed the Scorpions for failing to safeguard the rights of Zuma and his lawyers.

“[We] believe there is ample authority and precedent for the incorporation of safeguards in search-and-seizure orders and that these should have been included in the warrants in question,” they claim.

Zuma’s application slams the warrants in no uncertain terms, saying they are “riddled with imprecision and vagueness. Authority was given to seize documents which have a bearing on the investigation in question. Only such documents may be seized.”

It continues: “The investigation is nowhere even remotely described in the warrant. Save for the generic name of the criminal offence, no details as to nature, period, or any other features are given. The warrant thus allowed on the face of it, a general ransacking of the premises targeted.”

On the issue of the letter of request to the Mauritian attorney- general, issued in April this year, Zuma’s legal team cites the Scorpions’ refusal to say whether or not he would be charged again as one of the reasons it should not have been granted.

With acknowledgements to Werner Swart and The Times.