With a quick pat on the back for ANC spokeswoman 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 singing, only the whirring of camera shutters aimed at Zuma could be heard.

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 judgments of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on November 8, 2007.

They object to the searches at 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’s lawyer Kemp J. Kemp said that all the state had to do was attach an affidavit that would tell those conducting the searches what 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.

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 around 6.30 am. Kemp said that without the 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. 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 has been targeted for a search and seizure raid in the investigation against Zuma, saying it had already been summonsed and had handed over “massive amounts” of documents, including a diary they sought.

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.

Arguing for the state, advocate Wim Trengove said Kemp and Hodes’s complaints were “complaints in theory”. He said their action was an attempt “to keep evidence from the state. They haven’t made any attempt to prove that they would suffer in injustice at all”.

With acknowledgements to Sapa and The Witness.