'Scorpions invaded privacy right'

ANC deputy president Jacob Zuma and his lawyer, Michael Hulley, are claiming in papers filed with the Constitutional Court that search and seizure raids by the Scorpions had invaded their constitutional right to privacy and dignity.

In the papers filed with the court yesterday, Hulley claims that the raids are so controversial that although the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in the State's favour, the "judicial process" was equally divided over the raids.

He said: "The court of first instance (the Durban High Court) and the two judges in the SCA found for the Applicants herein; three judges of the SCA found for the respondents.

"The outcome in the SCA has simply demonstrated that the issues are contentious and of principle. It is thus clear also that there are reasonable pros-pects of success on appeal."

He goes on to say: "This of course is of fundamental im-portance in controlling the ex-tent of the invasion into the constitutional rights of particularly privacy, dignity and property inherent in search and seizure operations."

Hulley said the search and seizure warrants had given permission for documents related to the investigations into Zuma to be seized, but that the problem was the warrants had not "remotely described" the investigation.

Such a vagueness in the warrants "thus allowed on the face of it, a general ransacking of the premises targeted".

Zuma's and Hulley's premises were raided by the Scorpions on August 18, 2005.

The raids were carried out two months after Judge Hilary Squires convicted Zuma's former confidante and financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, in the Durban High Court on two counts of corruption and one count of fraud.

Referring to the day of the raids, Hulley said: "Indeed it was abundantly clear in this case that the searchers and the searched had no inkling as to what could and should be searched for and what could be seized pursuant to the warrants.

"There are a number of sound reasons based on the rule of law and the protection of the constitutional rights of privacy, fair trial and dignity, which imperatively call for the warrant to inform the searcher and the searched of the proper parameters of the search and seizure authorised."

Hulley states that the minority ruling by the Supreme Court of Appeal "is, with respect, correct".

In a second set of papers filed with the Constitutional Court, Zuma claims that Judge Philip Levensohn threatened his constitutional rights to a fair trial when the judge ruled in favour of granting the letter of request on April 2 after legal teams for Zuma and Thint had argued against the letter in the Pietermaritzburg High Court in March.

The documents the State seeks from Mauritius include the 2000 diary of Alain Thet-ard, the former chief executive of Thales International's South African subsidiary, Thint (Pty) Ltd, which reportedly details a meeting in March 2000 between him, Zuma and Shaik.

The National Prosecuting Authority alleges that an agreement on a R500 000-a-year bribe for Zuma was reached there.

There are two weeks before the ANC national conference in Polokwane, at which Zuma may be elected ANC president.

The deadline for the Nation-al Directorate of Public Prosecution to say whether it intends opposing the application is December 20, when the ANC conference will be in its final hours.

With acknowledgements to Sapa and Cape Argus.