Zuma saga continues

2007-08-28 12:41

Bloemfontein - Search warrants and not subpoenas were necessary to obtain documents from ANC deputy president Jacob Zuma and his lawyer Michael Hulley, the State argued in the Supreme Court of Appeal on Tuesday.

Wim Trengove argued that the lesser means of a subpoena would cause a "high risk" of evidence being concealed or destroyed.

"There's always a very real risk that the respondent would not be honest and open and frank."

He said the Durban High Court - which had declared warrants used to search premises belonging to Zuma and Hulley unlawful - had used an "unduly high" test to determine whether they were necessary.

"It would almost never be possible for the prosecution to show that there's no way to obtain the evidence by lesser means."

Trengove added: "Despite the evidence against Zuma and (the French arms company) Thint they denied complicity, giving every reason not to co-operate."

Before the start of proceedings a security guard joked with journalists sitting in the public gallery, telling them how to behave.

"No cameras and no zooming in on Mr Zuma."

Concerning the search of Hulley's office, Trengove said Hulley had been co-operative and had pointed out the two boxes investigators were interested in.

They apparently contained records Durban businessman Schabir Shaik had kept in his capacity as Zuma's financial adviser.

Hulley was arguing that the warrants and the searches violated his client-attorney privilege.

"They never suggested that the boxes contained privileged material. They had ample opportunity to determine whether the boxes in fact contained privileged material," said Trengove.

Proceedings were adjourned for tea during which time Zuma smiled for the photographers.

On August 18, 2005, the Scorpions raided Zuma's home and Hulley's office, seizing 93 000 documents.

The Durban High Court subsequently declared five of the search warrants unlawful and ordered the documents to be returned.

- SAPA