The state has accused African National Congress (ANC) president Jacob Zuma
and French arms company Thint of trying to cover up evidence gathered under
disputed warrants.
This is contained in the submission the state has made to the Constitutional
Court, in its opposition to appeals by Zuma and Thint. It also said Zuma and
Thint wanted to deprive the prosecution of incriminating evidence to be obtained
from Mauritius, which if admitted would contribute to proof of their guilt.
The state said this was an attempt to deprive it of the evidence it intended to
use in their forthcoming trial, and for no other legitimate purpose.
Zuma and Thint said the warrants used to search his home were invalid and should
be set aside. They also contended that the letter of request to Mauritian
officials for the release of the originals of 14 documents that might help in
the state's prosecution of Zuma and Thint should not have been granted by the
Durban High Court.
The Mauritian documents in dispute include the diary of former French arms
official Alain Thetard, in which an alleged entry indicated Thetard had a
meeting with Zuma and convicted fraudster Schabir Shaik in Mauritius in 2000,
where a R500000 bribe for Zuma was discussed.
The state charged Zuma and Thint again with racketeering, corruption and money
laundering last December. Zuma has also been charged with four counts of fraud.
He is accused of receiving payments of just over R4m from Shaik and the Nkobi
Group in exchange for furthering the business interests of the group.
Their case will begin in the Pietermaritzburg High Court in August.
The appeals against the warrants and letter of request would be heard by the
Constitutional Court on March 11 and 12.
In the state's heads of arguments, its counsel, Wim Trengove, said the state did
not contend it was illegal for Zuma and Thint to attempt to deprive the state
and ultimately their trial court of the evidence that was incriminating of them.
"They are entitled to employ every lawful mechanism in
their attempt to stop the truth *1 about their conduct being revealed. It
does not follow, however, that this court should permit and accommodate their
efforts to do so.
"It will, of course, always be vigilant in its protection of the applicants'
constitutional rights if they have been violated. But the trial court will be
fully equipped and in a better position to do so," Trengove said.
He said the Constitutional Court had considered aspects of section 29 of the
National Prosecuting Authority Act in another case where it made the point the
section struck a balance between the privacy interests of individuals on one
hand and the public interest in the fight against crime on the other.
On the Mauritian application, Trengove said Zuma wanted a right not to be named
as a suspect in a criminal investigation.
"We submit there is no such right. As Mr Zuma has frequently pointed out, he is
presumed innocent until proven guilty, something which the
Mauritian prosecution authorities must be presumed to understand.
"In other words, information he is being investigated on suspicion of having
committed an offence does not signify his guilt."
With acknowledgements to Ernest Mabuza and Business
Day.
*1Sure, but not at taxpayer's
expense.
He can take a 20% deduction from each of his wives' and childrens' weekly
emoluments and use this to fight his spurious weekly (weakly) interlocutory
applications and appeals.