Zuma lawyer: Judgment reserved

2007-08-27 18:39

Bloemfontein - The Supreme Court of Appeal reserved judgment on Monday in an appeal about the validity of search and seizure warrants served on a former attorney of ANC deputy president Jacob Zuma.

The counsel for the State, Wim Trengove, conceded that the warrants against Johannesburg-based attorney Julie Mahomed were not justified.

Notwithstanding this, Trengove asked the court for a preservation order of all seized material in case they are needed in possible future court proceedings against Zuma.

Earlier, the Johannesburg High Court found that the warrants which the National Prosecuting Authority applied for were unlawful and set them aside.

Trengove asked five appeal judges to take into account "other relevant aspects such as issues of public interest" and not only the validity of the warrants.

He said the Constitution requires that a balance should be struck between the rights of Mahomed and the public interest.

'Extensive seizure'

Trengove submitted the State was thus not really asking for "indulgence" for an unlawful act.

He also argued that search and seizures played and important role in effective crime fighting, which was in the public interest.

"In all these interests... a preservation order should be granted."

Arguing about the possible options for a preservation order, Trengove submitted that first prize would be that the original documents be sealed and locked away.

"At least copies should be made if (the court) saw a good reason she could have them back."

The State submitted that no privilege information or "privacy" would be breached if the seized material remain sealed and locked away by the court.

Mahomed's legal counsel, Neil Tuchten, submitted that an "extensive seizure" took place and documents which should not have been seized were taken.

He asked that no preservation order should be made.

He also submitted the court should not encourage a tendency on the part of the State to apply for extravagant warrants.

Tuchten submitted this was wrong and "should not be allowed" as it gives the state a second change later in litigation to decide if evidence should be used of not.

He submitted that the public did have an interest in the fight against crime, but "It must not be an interest that trumps all other rights."

- SAPA