Court rules that raids by Scorpions were legal.

ANC deputy president Jacob Zuma's campaign for the party's top job was dealt a blow yesterday when the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled legal the raids by the Scorpions on his homes, the offices of his lawyers and the offices of French arms company Thint.

This means that documents seized during the raids will be admissible as evidence should Zuma be prosecuted for fraud and corruption.

National Prosecuting Authority spokesman Tlali Tlali said the ruling is a major breakthrough in the investigation by the NPA into allegations of fraud and corruption against Zuma.

Tlali said: "This was one of the hurdles we had to clear in our ongoing investigation and it has now been overcome.

"The prosecuting team will again look into all the matters and table a report before a decision is made on the way forward."

Asked if the matter would be expedited quickly, Tlali said: " We will continue with this matter like we have been doing all along. We treat all our cases with the same level of seriousness."

The court also ruled that a letter of request to Mauritian authorities to obtain further evidence was lawful and valid.

Liesl Gottert, a spokeswoman for Zuma, said Zuma did not want to comment on the ruling, other than to say that his lawyers were studying the court's decision.

It is understood that Zuma was expecting the ruling and had already pinned his hopes on a Constitutional Court challenge.

Speaking to The Times after the ruling, Zuma's lawyer, Michael Hulley, said: "With no disrespect to them (the Supreme Court of Appeal), we believe the Constitutional Court may come to a different conclusion."

AJ Sooklal, who is representing Thint in the matter, confirmed that he had been instructed to take the matter to the Constitutional Court.

Sooklal said: "Once you read the judgment, it is clear there are matters that another court will see in perspective."

Sookal said his client has until November 29 to apply for leave to appeal.

Hulley repeated his claim that ulterior motives were behind the investigation of Zuma.

He said: "The view has long been held that the investigation has been guided by improper political motives."

"The timing and nature of the charges, should these eventuate, will be reflective as to whether such motives still exist."

Shadrack Gutto, a legal expert and political analyst, said: "Tonight is going to be a sleepless night for a lot of people; some bewildered by the decision and others too busy reworking their positions."

The ANC Youth League, the South African Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade Unions wasted no time in trying to undermine the judgment.

With only 18 days to go before the November 26 deadline for nominations for the ANC presidency, Zuma's backers were caught off guard by the Supreme Court's judgement.

Adam Habib, who is a political analyst at the University of Johannesburg, said the ruling would dramatically increase tensions within the ANC and among its alliance partners.

Habib said: "People who have been saying that it is not a good idea to have Zuma because he might get charged are going to become much more vocal. And people who have been on the fence will shift away from him."

He said the courts's ruling would result in increasingly strident calls for a compromise candidate, such as ANC national executive committee member Cyril Ramaphosa, businessman Tokyo Sexwale or ANC general secretary Kgalema Motlanthe.

Habib said the judgment had also strengthened President Thabo Mbeki's bid to be re-elected.

Political observers agreed that Zuma could "cut a deal" with the party leadership that will see him withdrawing from the race ­ on condition that Mbeki does the same. Zuma might then enter into a plea- bargain arrangement with the NPA.

Fikile Mbalula, president of the ANC Youth League, said only a guilty verdict would make the league withdraw its nomination of Zuma.

Mbalula said: "If Zuma is charged, will he receive a fair trial? That is the question that the Constitutional Court must answer."

Commenting on speculation that Zuma might withdraw from the race, Mbalula said: "His availability is not determined by him because that would be self-serving.

"It is us who decide where we want Zuma. His choice might be that he does not want to stand, but he has to respect the decisions of the ANC.

"Why [do they] want to convict Zuma at all costs?

"Why spend more than R20-million chasing R500 000 that a person could have received?" *1

With acknowledgement to Xolani Xundu, Werner Swart and The Times.