/ 8 September 2005

No need for Zuma raid probe, says minister

There is no need for a probe into the stand-off between the VIP protection unit of the police and the Scorpions during the recent raid on former deputy president Jacob Zuma’s home, Minister of Safety and Security Charles Nqakula said on Thursday.

He was asked whether the stand-off — where the VIP unit ran to the protection of Zuma, who still enjoys security protection, when the Scorpions began to raid Zuma’s Johannesburg home — Nqakula said: ”There was no necessity to have an investigation … what would we be investigating?”

Nqakula, national chairperson of the South African Communist Party, said it is the function of the VIP protection unit to ”protect their principal [Zuma]” and it is the function of the Scorpions to do their job as well.

It is natural that there was tension between the two entities. In the United States, the FBI

often has territorial conflicts with other police agencies, he noted.

He noted that the government is still protecting former president PW Botha. If he is approached by anyone, his VIP protection team will also immediately react.

The VIP protection unit of President Thabo Mbeki also reacted swiftly at a recent rally of the African National Congress when a member of the audience suddenly ran up to him, he said.

The raid on Zuma’s home last month led to emergency meetings between the alliance partners to thrash out the political fallout over the Zuma affair.

Both Zuma’s homes — the other one is in KwaZulu-Natal — were raided. The raids were in connection with Zuma’s upcoming trial for corruption related to South Africa’s arms deal. Zuma was axed from the Cabinet in June.

Attorney fights search warrants

Meanwhile, Zuma’s attorney Julekha Mahomed asked the Johannesburg High Court to set aside the search warrants after her home and office were searched by the Scorpions.

On Wednesday, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) denied any wrongdoing in the raid.

The NPA told the Johannesburg High Court that it had strictly adhered to its ruling Act in obtaining a search warrant for and executing the warrant at Mahomed’s office and home.

Challenged by Judge Ismail Hussein on whether the judge who granted the warrant had known that the attorney’s premises would be searched, the NPA said he did beyond doubt.

”In your affidavit, you referred to her as ‘Zuma’s legal assistant’,” Hussein said. ”How was the presiding judge to know she is a practising attorney?”

The NPA said it had not intentionally tried to hide the fact that Mahomed was an attorney. Referring to her as the legal assistant was an ”unintended mistake”.

The NPA also refuted Mahomed’s claim that she was not aware of her rights during the search. She claimed she did not know she could claim attorney-client privilege in respect of documents seized.

”How can an attorney not know her rights?” the NPA’s legal representative asked.

He said when Mahomed claimed privilege halfway through the search, the documents were sealed and handed to the registrar of the high court.

Mahomed’s counsel said the terms of the search warrant were so broad that the NPA could have seized anything belonging to her.

This was an indication that they were on a ”fishing expedition” and did not have any concrete evidence. — Sapa, I-Net Bridge