The Constitutional Court will hand down its ruling on Thursday on the lawfulness of search and seizures carried out at the premises of African National Congress president Jacob Zuma, his lawyer Michael Hulley and arms company Thint Holdings.
It will also deliver judgement on the lawfulness of a letter asking the Mauritian Attorney General to send to South Africa 14 documents and statements.
While the Durban High Court 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 seizures were valid and ordered that the state could retain the seized items.
Zuma, Hulley and Thint are now asking the Constitutional Court to order the return of their documents, arguing that the search-and-seizure warrants were incomplete, overbroad and vague and that Zuma’s rights were not adequately protected.
The state wants to use the documents against Zuma and two Thint companies in its fraud and money-laundering trial.
The Mauritian documents were seized from the premises of Thint and its director, Alain Thetard, in 2001. The state also intends using these in the trials.
‘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