The legal battle between former deputy president Jacob Zuma and South Africa’s National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) will continue this week in the Bloemfontein Supreme Court of Appeal.
Security will be tight at the court where the state will on consecutive days argue in three search-and-seizure appeal hearings related to investigations against Zuma.
The NPA will try to secure access to about 90 000 documents seized during raids in August 2005 at properties of Zuma, his attorneys and French arms company Thint.
The seizures were to secure evidence for possible criminal charges against Zuma and Thint, which were pending at the time.
About 250 members of the elite crime-fighting unit of the NPA — the Scorpions — took part in the raids on homes and offices, mainly in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng.
The appeal hearings continue despite a Pietermaritzburg High Court judgement, which had struck the state’s ”pending” case against Zuma off the roll.
On Monday, the state will appeal a high court judgement in favour of Johannesburg attorney Julie Mahomed.
The Johannesburg High Court set aside two search warrants, for her office and home, and held they were unlawful.
Mahomed was Zuma’s attorney from time to time and was the author of a loan agreement that came under scrutiny during the trial of Zuma’s former financial advisor, Schabir Shaik.
Five search-and-seizure warrants served on Zuma and his current attorney, Michael Hulley, which were declared invalid and unlawful in the Durban High Court, will be argued on Tuesday.
In this case, like in the Mahomed matter, the state was ordered to return all items seized and removed from the premises of Zuma and the two attorneys.
On Wednesday, Thint will appeal a Pretoria High Court judgement in favour of the state.
The company’s Pretoria office and the home of chief executive Pierre Moynot were searched.
The same appeal judges, a full panel of five, will sit in all three hearings.
UK probe
Meanwhile, Lawyers for the state argued last week in the Pretoria High Court that Zuma does not have the right to look over the shoulders of investigators all along the way.
Zuma had brought an application to stop the national director of public prosecutions (NDPP) from extending an investigation to the United Kingdom.
The arguments, however, revolved around the technical legal issue of whether he should be allowed to challenge a request for international assistance sought by the NDPP.
At the end of March, the NDPP brought an ex-parte application for permission to approach banks and solicitors in the United Kingdom with a view to the possible reinstating of fraud and corruption charges against Zuma.
Zuma only became aware of the application after Judge Ben du Plessis ratified a letter of request for international assistance from Leonard McCarthy, the NDPP.
Zuma’s legal council, advocate Kemp J Kemp SC, argued that he should have been notified about the application.
”It’s about seeking to prosecute Mr Zuma — how can a potential accused not have an interest?” Kemp asked.
Lawyers for the state argued that the application was only brought as part of a process of information gathering.
”This is a true investigation; it might lead somewhere, it might lead nowhere,” advocate Billy Downer SC said. The state argued that should the information gathered become evidence at a later possible trial, Zuma would then be able to challenge it.
The NDPP wants the assistance of the manager of Barclays Bank in London, where the account of solicitors Berwin Leighton Paisner is held. It also wants to approach the solicitors about details of a payment made in August 2001 from their bank account to an entity in South Africa named Cay Nominees. The NDPP argues that the payment might have been paid as a bribe.
Judgement in this matter was reserved. — Sapa