If Zuma’s innocent, why go to such lengths, asks judge

‘If a person professes his innocence, then why go to all these lengths to prevent the evidence being obtained,’ Hugo asked. Advocate Kemp J Kemp replied: ‘We think it is important. If I can keep it (the evidence) out, it is my duty to keep it out. If it advances the accused\'s battle plan, why should we give that up?’ Hugo was hearing a National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) application to allow a letter of authorisation asking authorities in Mauritius to release documents to be executed, pending the outcome of an appeal in September. A Mail & Guardian Online report points out that Judge Phillip Levinsohn granted a ‘letter of authorisation’ for the documents in April, but Thint and Zuma obtained leave to appeal against the letter being executed. The appeal is expected to be heard by the Supreme Court of Appeal on September 21. The documents the NPA seeks include the diary of former Thint CE Alain Thetard. They allegedly prove there were meetings held where Zuma, Durban fraud convict Schabir Shaik and Thetard met to discuss a R500 000-a-year bribe. State prosecutor Billy Downer said the admissibility of the documents could be argued in a trial court if it is decided to prosecute Zuma and Thint. He said neither Zuma nor Thint has suffered prejudice, and the State was entitled to get all the evidence it required. Downer pointed out there was no case pending against Zuma or Thint. ‘They\'re suspects. No more and no less. Would a court allow a suspect to stop an investigation?’ Full report on the Mail & Guardian Online site

Earlier, Zuma’s team argued that if the High Court granted an ‘execution order’ it would affect the SCA’s ability to rule on subsequent appeals. Kemp, Zuma\'s advocate, said: ‘If the order is granted all they will have scored is four months.’ Both he and Thint advocate Nirmal Singh pointed out that the granting of the execution order would result in legal action in Mauritius, which ‘would be all for nothing’ if Thint and Zuma won their appeal. A report on the News24 site says Singh argued that the State had not told the court that the letter of authorisation also directed officials in Mauritius to obtain statements in the form of affidavits from those connected with the documents. He said the International Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act directed that those statements would have to be accepted by a trial court, and therefore Thint would not have the option of contesting the admissibility of the affidavits. ‘How do you undo that,’ he asked. Judgment has been reserved. Full report on the News24 site