Zuma's rights 'violated'
2008-02-14 21:41
Johannesburg - African National Congress president Jacob Zuma's constitutional rights were violated when the Scorpions raided his home as well as that of his attorney in 2005, Zuma claimed in papers filed in the Constitutional Court (Concourt) on Thursday.
In the written argument submitted to the Concourt on Thursday, the two men claim that their constitutional right to privacy, dignity, property and a fair trial were violated by the raids.
The Concourt will hear Zuma's application on March 11 and 12.
The papers signed by advocates Kemp J Kemp and Mike Smithers are part of the Concourt action that challenges a Supreme Court of Appeals (SCA) ruling made on November 8.
The SCA then ruled that the five warrants used to search the premises of Zuma and Hulley, were legal - a fact disputed by the two men.
Zuma and Hulley argue that they "should be granted leave to appeal to this Court against the majority judgment of the SCA and that the respondents be ordered to pay the costs occasioned by their opposition to this application".
In a second written argument filed with the Concourt on Thursday, Zuma claims that his constitutional rights have also been violated by Judge Philip Levensohn's decision last April to grant the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) a letter of request (LOR) asking authorities in Mauritius to hand over documents pertaining to alleged meetings between Zuma, convicted businessman Schabir Shaik and French arms manufacturer Thint.
Rights to a fair trial
The documents that the state seeks from Mauritius include the 2000 diary of Alain Thetard, the former chief executive of Thales International's South African subsidiary, Thint, which reportedly details a meeting in March 2000 between him, Zuma and Shaik.
The NPA alleges that an agreement on a R500 000-a-year bribe for Zuma was reached at this meeting.
Zuma's appeal against Levensohn's decision to issue the letter of request was rejected by the SCA.
Zuma's legal team "submit that the LOR which has been transmitted to law enforcement officials in a foreign state (Mauritius), directly and detrimentally affects the applicant's (Zuma) dignity".
They are also claiming that Zuma's rights to a fair trial and his constitutional "right of access to the court" have been violated and should therefore also be allowed to appeal the SCA ruling.
- SAPA