It was a relationship that once held such promise but now, says the State, it can no longer trust French arms company Thint.

Addressing the Supreme Court of Appeal yesterday, counsel for the State, Wim Trengove, SC, focused on what he described as Thint CEO Pierre Moynot's "extraordinary" statement that the Scorpions raids on the company's offices were pointless because incriminating evidence sought by the State would have been destroyed.

"In other words, what Mr Moynot says, is that one must assume that Thint and its employees will always destroy or dispose of any documents which might provide the slightest semblance of support for the State," Trengove said.

At issue at three hearings in the Bloemfontein court this week were the controversial 2005 raids on the homes and offices of Jacob Zuma, his attorneys and Thint.

Yesterday it was Thint's turn to challenge the validity of the warrants used to search its office. And its credibility came under fire.

Trengove pointed to the fact that Thint's former representative Alain Thetard had on three occasions resisted attempts by the State to locate his 2000 diary and that Thetard had reneged on his deal with the State that in return for criminal charges being withdrawn, he would admit to being the author of an incriminating document in the trial of Zuma's former financial advisor Schabir Shaik.

And the State has also taken issue with Thint's argument that the warrants used to search its premises were unlawful.

One of these points, Thint Counsel Peter Hodes, SC, claimed was the fact that privileged legal documents might been housed at the Thint premise which may have required the judge to include certain safeguards in the warrants.

Trengove accused Thint of "deliberately" not examining the documents seized in the raid "to avoid the risk of finding that they did not include any privileged material at all".

He said the raid had been conducted with Thint's legal representatives being there.

"In a March 2006 letter, its attorney admonished Advocate Baloyi for communicating with them directly and not through the State Attorney, accusing Baloyi of being "inappropriate in the extreme and incomprehensibly impertinent".

"Apart from this emotional outburst, Thint failed to demonstrate that there was any privileged material on the computer," Trengove said.

Judgment was reserved.

With acknowledgement to Cape Argus.