[Adds argument on privilege]
 
The state believes it has a good chance of convicting Jacob Zuma on corruption, its advocate Wim Trengove told he Constitutional Court on Wednesday, as he fought for the right to keep documents seized in the investigation against Zuma.

"We are sure that we have a case, not merely a prima facie case, but a case with a reasonable prospect of conviction," Trengove said, with Zuma sitting behind him in the front row of the public gallery.

He said the difference between interpretations of the search warrants used in the searches, by the state on the one hand and Zuma, arms company Thint and Zuma's lawyer Michael Hulley on the other, was "extremely narrow." Thint argued that the warrants issued by Transvaal Judge President Bernard Ngoepe were authorized without a case being made to Ngoepe.

Zuma's lawyer, Kemp J Kemp, said there was no affidavit with information on the investigation attached to the warrants.

Trengove said neither Section 29 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act nor the Constitution made provision for the attachment of an affidavit as suggested by Kemp.

While the searches had to be done in a dignified manner that respected privacy, the person being searched was not entitled to start challenging the state's interpretation of the authority on the scene.

He was only entitled to be told on what authority it was being done and was entitled to have his questions answered.

"Of course that afternoon he (a person being searched) can go to his lawyer," said Trengove.

He said the admissibility of the documents could also be decided at trial.

In court papers Hulley said that he left his offices for the airport on the morning of the raid and it was only on his way to the airport that he tried to challenge the raid and secure an affidavit, nor was he familiar with what he could have done on the scene. He only received an affidavit the following day.

The court heard that he pointed out the boxes of financial records that Schabir Shaik's attorneys sent him and which the searchers wanted.

Hulley did not object to the boxes being taken until much later.

Trengove said: "They all had the opportunity to point to privileged material, but they have not pointed to any."

He said that Hulley had so far only engaged on a "theoretical debate" on the issue of client/attorney privilege.

"All lawyers know about privilege and have the right to invoke privilege," said Trengove.

Trengove said the annexes on the warrant saying what was sought *1 gave an indication of the type of investigation.

The investigating officer, Johann du Plooy, had also justified his application for the warrants in a sworn statement to Ngoepe *2.

Trengove said the searches were a continuation of the investigation originally done for the purposes of the trial of Schabir Shaik, Zuma's former financial adviser, who was convicted of corruption relating to a R500 000 bribe Zuma is alleged to have received from him.

"There is a case, a reasonable prospect of conviction," said Trengove.

Earlier on Wednesday morning Trengove told the court that the June 2005 warrants issued by Transvaal Judge President Bernard Ngoepe satisfied the requirement of "objective delineation" and "went a lot further".

Citing the warrant used by the Scorpions to search Zuma's flat in Killarney, Johannesburg, Trengove said that the documents "that have a bearing on the investigation" were detailed in an annex to the warrant and that "the offences are listed in the warrant."

On Tuesday, Kemp and Thint advocate Peter Hodes argued that the warrants were too vague.

"When the applicant contends that the warrant was deficient, they must say that the [Supreme Court of Appeal] was wrong," said Trengove.

Zuma and Thint are trying to overturn a Supreme Court of Appeal decision that the documents may be used in Zuma's forthcoming August 4 trial, on the grounds that the warrants that allowed the searches were invalid.

With acknowledgements to Sapa.