JOHANNESBURG: State prosecutors' legal victories over Jacob Zuma and French arms company Thint clear the way for thousands of documents to be examined in the investigation into possible corruption charges against the ANC deputy president.

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the National Director of Public Prosecutions' appeal against the Durban High Court order that set aside five search warrants against Zuma and his attorney Michael Hulley.

But the court's ruling that the warrants were valid was not unanimous, with a minority among the five appeal judges finding they were invalid because they did not intelligibly convey the ambit of the search.

The majority judgment said the warrants had expressed their authority "intelligibly and with certainty" and that the law under which they had been issued required no more than this.

The successful appeal means evidence gathered during raids by the Scorpions in August 2005 will not be returned to Zuma, his former attorney, Julekha Mohamed, and Hulley.

In a separate appeal, Zuma and Thint also failed to convince the court that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) should not be allowed to ask the Mauritian authorities to hand over the originals of 14 documents used as evidence in the trial of Zuma's former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, on fraud and corruption charges.

Potential allegations against Zuma include money-laundering and tax evasion, as well as possible charges relating to R3.5 million in payments made to Zuma by Shaik.

The NPA has been pursuing its investigation since charges against Zuma were struck off the roll by Pietermaritzburg High Court Judge Herbert Msimang.

During the hearing by Msimang, it emerged that 93 000 disputed documents had been used to undertake a forensic audit of Zuma's financial affairs.

The documents had been seized during the Scorpions' controversial August 2005 raids on offices and homes of Zuma, Hulley and Mohamed. They included two boxes of documents handed to Hulley by Shaik.

The audit, carried out on behalf of the state by KPMG, could form the basis of any fresh indictment the state produces against Zuma and Thint.

Following Shaik's 2005 conviction, Zuma was charged with "mirror images" of some of the charges on which Shaik had been found guilty.

The most crucial of these relates to allegations of an arrangement for Thint to pay R500 000 in return for protection during the probe into the arms deal.

Allegations during his trial were that Shaik had been party to the meeting at which this arrangement was reached.

The arrangement was noted in Thint representative Alain Thethard's diary, which is one of the 14 documents that the state will be allowed to request from Mauritian authorities.

Zuma, meanwhile, hopes to thwart any plans the state may have of proceeding with fraud and corruption charges against him - and he will go to South Africa's highest court to achieve this.

The ANC deputy president has also hinted that any attempt to bring fresh charges against him before the ruling party’s crucial leadership vote next month will be seen as being tainted by “improper political motives”.

“Whether these rulings embolden the National Prosecuting Authority to indict Mr Zuma again … will be observed with keen interest,” Hulley said.

“The view has long been held that the investigation has been guided by improper political motives.”

NPA spokesperson Tlali Tlali welcomed the rulings as a ”vindication”, but said it had not been decided whether Zuma or Thint would face fresh charges.

In their minority ruling on the Scorpions’ raids on Zuma and Hulley, Judges Ian Farlam and Tom Cloete agreed with the Durban High Court that the warrants were “inappropriately vague”.

Farlam recommended that the documents be held in the custody of a high court registrar until the state reached a decision on whether to charge Zuma.

Hulley said he and Zuma’s counsel, Kemp J Kemp, SC, would meet today to prepare an application for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court. They have 15 days to file this.

The appeal judges were also divided on whether the NPA should return documents seized from Mohamed with a warrant that the state acknowledged amounted to a “constitutional violation”.

The majority decision was that the documents be preserved by the registrar of the Johannesburg High Court.

With acknowledgements to Karyn Maughan and Cape Times.