French arms dealer Thint on Tuesday lost its application to have a search warrant declared invalid and documents seized from its offices by the Scorpions in August last year returned.
Judge Ben du Plessis dismissed Thint’s application with costs, but ordered the Directorate of Special Operations (DSO) and the National Director of Public Prosecutions to lodge all copies of a detailed plan of Thint director Pierre Moynot’s home with the Registrar of the court.
Items seized from the home of Moynot and his wife, Bijou, have already been returned. This after the DSO conceded that the warrant, issued for their home, was invalid on technical grounds.
Moynot wanted the plan of his home, drawn up by investigators, returned for personal security reasons.
The search-and-seizure warrants, granted by Judge President Bernard Ngoepe, form part of the Scorpions’ investigation into allegations of corruption, money laundering, fraud and related offences.
The investigation also implicated, amongst others, former deputy president Jacob Zuma, his financial advisor Schabir Shaik and the French-based Thomson/Thales group, of which Thint is a member.
Charges were initially withdrawn against Thint when the trial of Shaik and 11 corporations commenced in October 2004. A decision was, however, made to prosecute Thint because the DSO was of the opinion that evidence during Shaik’s trial implicated Thint in alleged corrupt payments to Zuma.
Thint earlier argued that the warrant against it was unlawfully obtained because senior special investigator Johan du Plooy had not properly disclosed all important information to Ngoepe. Further, it argued that the terms of the warrant were also too broad and Thint employees were not allowed to claim privilege for computer records.
Judge du Plessis said although papers before Ngoepe had not fully set out the terms of the initial agreement to withdraw charges against Thint, it was clear that the prosecuting authority was still contemplating charging Thint when the warrant was obtained.
Du Plessis concluded that the terms of the warrant were not overly broad.
He said the investigating authority will not always have full details of the offences under investigation at its disposal. Failure to state the time when the offences were committed was not fatal to the validity of the warrant.
”The investigations [in this case] progressed far and accused persons and entities have already been convicted. Yet, it appears from Du Plooy’s affidavit that the investigators are still investigating whether corrupt payments are still being made.”
Not only was Thint aware of the nature of the investigations but had, with the aid of legal assistance, been keeping abreast of developments since 2001.
”The warrant, in its terms, authorises nothing more than the seizure of objects that have or might have a bearing on the investigation,” the judge added.
Du Plessis stressed that the debate about privileged information on the computers was academic. Thint’s attorney had already informed the Scorpions on the day of the search that they did not consent to the seizure of possibly privileged material.
The computers had not only been returned to Thint, but electronically stored copies of the computer’s hard drives were also sent back.
Thint is expected to appeal the ruling.
Zuma’s and Thint’s fraud and corruption trial has been scheduled to start in the Durban High Court on July 31, although the state will reportedly apply for a postponement until February next year.
Shaik is appealing his conviction on two corruption charges and one of fraud.
The state’s appeal against rulings by the Johannesburg High Court and the Durban High Court, which declared search warrants for the home and offices of Juleka Mahomed, a former attorney of Zuma, and the Durban premises of Zuma and his attorney Michael Hulley, invalid, is presently also pending. — Sapa