There is no statute determining exactly what provisions should be in a search warrant, the Constitutional Court heard on Tuesday as Jacob Zuma and French arms company Thint began a last-ditch bid to prevent key documents from being used against them.

Peter Hodes, the advocate representing Thint, said: "There is no statute that says what should be in the warrant."

Hodes said the only legal reference he had seen governing the content of a search warrant was an old Orange Free State ordinance from the 1800s.

He said: "It is necessary to emphasise the fact that there was a divided (Supreme) court," adding that implied that there was a reasonable prospect of success on appealing the Supreme Court of Appeal's November 8 decision to uphold the 2005 search and seizure raids.

Conceding that there was no statute, Hodes cited case law stating that the search warrants needed to be clear to the person being searched and as well as those carrying out the searches.

Zuma's legal team was also expected to argue that his constitutional rights were violated when the Scorpions raided his home as well as that of his attorney in 2005.

Earlier the ANC president arrived at the constitutional court amid a heavy security presence and the sound of camera shutters as photographers clamoured to shoot pictures.

A heavy police presence was visible around the court buildings while journalists packed the press gallery.

State prosecutors Wim Trengove and Billy Downer arrived early at the court in their bid to thwart Zuma's bid to appeal against the search and seizure raids.

These raids netted the state documents that it wants to use in its case against Zuma.

Zuma shook hands with his attorney, as well as the Thint chief executive Pierre Moynot, before taking his seat immediately behind his legal representatives.

Lawyers for the National Prosecuting Authority and Zuma shook hands before Zuma arrived at the court.

Moments after Zuma sat down next to Moynot *1, the photographers were ushered out of the court.

Access to the usually open court was strictly controlled by security staff and police, with seats reserved in the front for "VIPs".

ANC spokeswoman Jessie Duarte was among the few people who managed to secure a space in the public gallery.

Zuma's advocate Kemp J Kemp just smiled and said, "I'm okay," when asked for comment.

Zuma's attorney Michael Hulley said: "We are here to be heard, we will take it from there."

The raids at properties belonging to Zuma in Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal and at Hulley's Durban office on August 18, 2005, 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.

The corruption charges related to Shaik's attempt to solicit a R500,000 a year bribe from French arms manufacturing giant Thales International (formerly Thomson CSF) for Zuma.

The hearing continues.

With acknowledgements to Sapa.