A Constitutional Court challenge by African National Congress president Jacob Zuma has failed.
Zuma, together with his lawyer, Michael Hulley, and arms company Thint had contested the lawfulness of search-and-seizure operations at their premises.
”All the applicants’ challenges to the search-and-seizure operations failed,” Chief Justice Pius Langa found in a majority judgement handed down on Thursday.
”Accordingly, the orders of the Supreme Court of Appeal are upheld.”
Zuma and Thint also lost their bid to prevent the state from bringing original documents from Mauritius to South Africa for use in their corruption trial.
While the Durban High Court previously upheld a challenge by Zuma and Hulley against the search and seizures, the Pretoria High Court ruled against a similar challenge by Thint. However, the Supreme Court of Appeals later ruled that the search-and-seizure warrants were valid and ordered that the state could retain the seized items.
Zuma then petitioned the Constitutional Court. It was argued that the warrants were too broad and were an invasion of privacy.
The state wants to use the documents against Zuma and two Thint companies in its fraud and money-laundering trial.
‘Out of time’
Meanwhile, Zuma should have complained a lot sooner than he did if he believed the national director of public prosecutions (NDPP) had violated his constitutional rights. This is according to the heads of argument filed by the state in the Pietermaritzburg High Court on Wednesday afternoon.
Zuma claims that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) was obliged in terms of the Constitution and the National Prosecuting Authority Act of 1998 to give him the opportunity to make representations before it decided to prosecute him in 2005 and 2007.
He also claims that the decision to prosecute him was a reversal of a decision taken by former NDPP Bulelani Ngcuka, who announced in August 2003 that he had a prima facie case against Zuma, but would not be prosecuting him.
The state asked why Zuma was only in 2008 questioning the decision of suspended prosecutions boss Vusi Pikoli, who opted to prosecute Zuma following the conviction of Durban businessman Schabir Shaik in August 2005.
”We submit at the outset that the court should decline to review the Pikoli decision because it has become moot and the application for its review is out of time.”
It also emerged that Zuma’s lawyer, Michael Hulley, had written to the NPA on October 11 2007, requesting ”an opportunity to be heard”. The state contends that Hulley had been told that he would not be able to make representations.
”When the acting NDPP [Mokotedi Mpshe] declined their request in his reply of October 12 2007, they did not protest as they would have done if they had any real expectation of a hearing.”
Zuma was charged on December 28 2007.
He faces a charge of racketeering, four charges of corruption, a charge of money laundering and 12 charges of fraud.
Judge Chris Nicholson will preside over Zuma’s application to have the decision to prosecute him declared unlawful.
The application will be heard in the Pietermaritzburg High Court on Monday and Tuesday. — Sapa