JOHANNESBURG — ANC president Jacob Zuma’s attempt to have search and seizure raids as well as a letter requesting documents from Mauritius ruled invalid is set to enter a third day at the Constitutional Court in Johannesburg today.

Originally, only two days were set aside for the court to hear an application to appeal a November 8 Supreme Court of Appeal ruling, but yesterday evening, Chief Justice Puis Langa ordered that the court reconvene today to finish proceedings.

Earlier, the court reserved judgment on the controversial June 2005 search and seizure raids, which French arms manufacturer Thint argued were issued by Transvaal Judge President Bernard Ngoepe without a case being made.

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

Arguing for the state, advocate Wim Trengove 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, is “extremely narrow”.

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

“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.

While searches must be done in a dignified manner that respects privacy, the person being searched is not entitled to start challenging the state’s interpretation of the authority on the scene. He is only entitled to be told on what authority it is being done.

“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.

The court heard that Hulley pointed out the boxes of financial records that Schabir Shaik’s attorneys sent him and that 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 has so far only engaged on a “theoretical debate” on the issue of client/attorney privilege.

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

Kemp said Zuma had two months to “burn” documents seized in the raids. He said Zuma is not attempting to keep documents that could implicate him in his forthcoming corruption trial out of court.

Referring to a letter of request authorised by Judge Phillip Levensohn in April 2007, Kemp said that allowing the documents from Mauritius to be “imported” would “negate” Zuma’s legal team’s ability to challenge the documents in the court.

Argument over the documents in Mauritius will resume today.

With acknowledgements to Sapa and The Witness.