ANC president Jacob Zuma sat quietly in the front row of the Constitutional Court on Tuesday, listening to his legal team challenge the validity of the warrants used to seize documents that could be used against him in his forthcoming corruption trial.

With a quick pat on the back for newly appointed 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 thunderous supportive singing, only the whirring of camera shutters aimed at Zuma could be heard.

A lone protester from SA Prisoners for Human Rights, draped in chains, stood under a tree across the road from the court bearing the ubiquitous placard "Zuma for President".

Further down the road a dustbin was wrapped with a poster that read: "Save the Scorpions."

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 carried out on 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 was "released" of his duties as deputy president after that and charged with corruption, but the case was taken off the roll, pending various appeals including the validity of the searches and seizures.

The SCA ruled against them and Zuma and Thint are arguing that the warrants that allowed the searches, granted by Transvaal Judge President Bernard Ngoepe, were invalid because they were "over broad" and vague, and did not list exactly what should be seized, and so they want them declared invalid.

Zuma's lawyer Kemp J Kemp said that all the state had to do was attach an affidavit which would tell those conducting the searches more about the investigation and which 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.

He said the warrants were so vague that even the people whose premises were searched on August 18 2005 would not know which documents were being sought.

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 around 6.30am.

Kemp said that without the specific 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.

The officials would not know what to look for either.

In court papers, it was argued that this could lead to the state gaining access to confidential notes on Zuma's defence and raised concerns about his right to a fair trial.

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 had been targeted for a search and seizure raid in the investigation against Jacob Zuma, saying it had already been summonsed and had handed over "massive amounts" of documents to the National Prosecuting Authority, including a diary they had sought.

He said the state had not made a case to the judge when asking for the warrants.

"The judge issuing a search warrant is not a rubber stamp, a case has to be made out for it," said Hodes.

The state had had the benefit of a "general ransack pursuant to a defective search warrant".

Hodes said the June 2005 warrants had told the investigators searching Thint premises that "you go and look. If you find anything you like, good luck to you."

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 at the end of the day, Advocate Wim Trengove said Kemp and Hodes complaints were "complaints in theory."

He said their action in the Constitutional court 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."

Referring to the argument that the State should have given notice before obtaining the search warrants, he said there was an "inherent risk" that suspects would dispose of evidence.

"Once the horse has bolted, it's too late to close the stable door," he said.

With acknowledgements to Giordano Stolley, Jenni O'Grady and Sapa.