JOHANNESBURG: Jacob Zuma's constitutional rights were violated when the Scorpions raided his home and that of his attorney in 2005, the ANC president has claimed in papers filed with the Constitutional Court.

In the argument submitted yesterday, Zuma and attorney Michael Hulley claim the raids violated their constitutional right to privacy and dignity, and Zuma's right to a fair trial.

The Constitutional Court is to hear the application for leave to appeal on March 11 and 12.

The action follows a Supreme Court of Appeals ruling on November 8 that the five warrants used to effect the searches were legal.

Zuma and Hulley say the warrants were flawed as they did not have sufficient detail.

The raids were carried out two months after the Durban High Court convicted Zuma's former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, on two counts of corruption and one of fraud.

The corruption charges related to Shaik's attempt to solicit payments of R500 000 a year from French arms manufacturer Thomson-CSF, now known as Thales International, for Zuma.

The Constitutional Court application follows a Supreme Court of Appeal ruling that overturned a high court finding that the five search warrants were invalid and the searches unlawful.

Zuma's legal team concede the Scorpions had sufficient authority to seize documents relating to their investigations, but say "the investigation was nowhere even remotely described in the warrants".

"The applicants were rendered liable to arbitrary deprivation of property, which deprivation is linked to the invasion of the right to property."

In a second written argument filed yesterday, Zuma claims his constitutional rights have also been violated by Justice Philip Levensohn's decision in April to grant the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) a letter of request asking authorities in Mauritius to hand over documents pertaining to alleged meetings between Zuma, Shaik and Thomson-CSF.

The documents include the 2000 diary of Alain Thetard, then-chief executive of Thomson-CSF's South African subsidiary, now known as Thint. The diary is alleged to detail a meeting in March 2000 with Zuma and Shaik.

Zuma's appeal against the court's decision to issue the letter of request has been rejected by the supreme court.

Thint had also filed papers with the Constitutional Court seeking to appeal the decision allowing the letter of request, said Ajay Sooklall, attorney for the company. - Sapa

With acknowledgements to Sapa and Cape Times.