Publication: Cape Argus Issued: Date: 2008-03-11 Reporter: Murray Williams Reporter: Sapa

D-Day for Zuma's Bid to Stop Courts

 

Publication 

Cape Argus
Date

2008-03-11
Reporter Murray Williams, Sapa, AFP

Web Link

www.capeargus.co.za


Legal team tackles legality of Scorpions raid

Today is D-Day for ANC president Jacob Zuma as he attempts his last possible recourse against the State using allegedly damning evidence against him in his corruption trial.

Zuma was due to take his seat in the Constitutional Court this morning shortly after 9am.

His attorney, Michael Hulley, yesterday confirmed Zuma would be attending the proceedings. Johannesburg Metro Police announced they would have several extra officers deployed in Braamfontein to ensure that traffic continued to flow irrespective of the number of Zuma supporters who may turn out.

At 9am this morning, matters were quiet outside the court. Some said this was at the request of Zuma's advisors - who warned against the type of support he received during his rape trial.

Arguments in the Constitutional Court will be heard over the next two days. Firstly, Zuma and French arms manufacturer Thint will ask the court for leave to appeal against a ruling by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein which determined that the August 2005 search-and-seizure warrants used by the Scorpions to seize documents from Zuma and from attorneys, Hulley and Julekha Mohamed respectively, were legal.

Secondly, Zuma and Thint will both ask for leave to appeal against the Supreme Court of Appeal's support of the State's right to request documents from Mauritius.

On the raids, Zuma argues that his rights to privacy, dignity, property and a fair trial were infringed by the warrants, which were issued to the Scorpions in August 2005 by Bernard Ngoepe, the Judge President of the Transvaal.

Zuma told the Constitutional Court, as an example of the "gross" violation of his privacy and dignity, that when the Scorpions raided his Killarney flat they seized a diary belonging to his late wife Kate, despite the complaints of their son, Mxilisi.

The raids at properties belonging to Zuma in Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal and at Hulley's Durban office were carried out two months after Judge Hilary Squires convicted Zuma's former confidante and financial adviser Schabir Shaik on two counts of corruption and one count of fraud in the Durban High Court.

In a second argument filed with the Constitutional Court, Zuma has claimed that his constitutional rights were violated by Judge Philip Levensohn's decision last April to grant the National Prosecuting Authority a letter of request asking authorities in Mauritius to hand over documents pertaining to alleged meetings between Zuma, convicted businessman Schabir Shaik and French arms manufacturer Thint.

The documents the state seeks from Mauritius include the 2000 diary of Alain Thetard, the former chief executive of Thint, which reportedly details a meeting in March 2000 between him, Zuma and Shaik.

With acknowledgements to Murray Williams, Sapa, AFP and Cape Argus.


*1       Searches and seizures by the investigating authorities are always a gross violation of one's privacy and dignity, but not of one's rights.

But that is what to expect when on'e conduct can prima facie deemed to be criminal, for that conduct is indeed a gross violation of the rights of others.

And prima facie it certainly is - lot's of documentary evidence placed in front of the Judge President who deems as such and issues the warrants.

The judge acted in good faith, the investigators acted in good faith and the prosecutors acted in good faith.

Only the criminals did not act in good faith.

And they want to be president.