ANC president Jacob Zuma sat quietly in the front row of the Constitutional
Court on Tuesday, listening to his legal team challenge the validity of the
warrants used to seize documents that could be used against him in his
forthcoming corruption trial.
With a quick pat on the back for newly appointed ANC spokesperson Jessie Duarte
and a warm handshake to investigator Johan du Plooy, the man who could be
president settled next to Pierre Moynot, chief executive of Thint, a French arms
company implicated in the bribes Zuma is alleged to have received.
In contrast to previous court appearances marked by thunderous supportive
singing, only the whirring of camera shutters aimed at Zuma could be heard.
A lone protester from SA Prisoners for Human Rights, draped in chains, stood
under a tree across the road from the court bearing the ubiquitous placard "Zuma
for President".
The court is hearing four related applications by Zuma, his attorney Michael
Hulley, Thint (Pty) Ltd and Thint Holdings Southern Africa for leave to appeal
against three judgements of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on November 8,
2007.
They object to the searches carried out on their premises as part of the
investigation against Zuma, after Zuma's financial adviser Schabir Shaik was
convicted of fraud and corruption relating to paying a R500 000 a year bribe to
Zuma for support and protection of Thint during the arms deal process.
Zuma was "released" of his duties as deputy president after that and charged
with corruption, but the case was taken off the roll, pending various appeals
including the validity of the searches and seizures.
The SCA ruled against them and Zuma and Thint are arguing that the warrants that
allowed the searches, granted by Transvaal Judge President Bernard Ngoepe, were
invalid because they were "over broad" and vague, and did not list exactly what
should be seized, and so they want them declared invalid.
Zuma's lawyer Kemp J Kemp said that all the state had to do was attach an
affidavit which would tell those conducting the searches more about the
investigation and which information to look for.
This would have prevented both the seizure of documents unrelated to the case
and potential violations of privacy and lawyer/client privilege.
He said the warrants were so vague that even the people whose premises were
searched on August 18 2005 would not know which documents were being sought.
Between 250 to 300 officials arrived at Zuma's homes in Johannesburg, his
homestead in Nkandla and his offices, Hulley's office, and the home and offices
of Moynot at about 6.30am.
Kemp said that without the specific details, those being searched would also not
be able to point out and raise objections to the seizure of information or items
that fell out of the scope of the warrant.
The officials would not know what to look for either.
In court papers, it was argued that this could lead to the state gaining access
to confidential notes on Zuma's defence and raised concerns about his right to a
fair trial.
Kemp said that the vagueness of the documents was why the state had ended up
with 93 000 pages. He quipped that it must be the "best documented case of
corruption ever in the history of the world".
According to court papers Hulley said that he was not immediately familiar with
the section of the National Prosecuting Act that would have allowed him to
object immediately. It was only on his way to the airport that he called the NPA
investigators in an attempt to have the documents sealed while he applied for a
court order objecting to the search.
Kemp said that in spite of a list of items noted on the warrant, the officials
only took boxes of Zuma's financial records, transferred to Hulley when Shaik
resigned as Zuma's financial adviser.
Earlier Thint lawyer Peter Hodes questioned why the arms company had been
targeted for a search and seizure raid in the investigation against Jacob Zuma,
saying it had already been summonsed and had handed over "massive amounts" of
documents to the National Prosecuting Authority, including a diary they had
sought.
He said the state had not made a case to the judge when asking for the warrants.
"The judge issuing a search warrant is not a rubber stamp, a case has to be made
out for it," said Hodes.
The state had had the benefit of a "general ransack pursuant to a defective
search warrant".
Hodes said the June 2005 warrants had told the investigators searching Thint
premises that "you go and look. If you find anything you like, good luck to
you."
However, Justice Zak Yacoob questioned whether the fact that the warrants
referred explicitly to Shaik did not make it clear to the searcher what was
being searched for.
"You don't need much imagination to work out what was wanted," said Yacoob.