Now Zuma heads for Constitutional Court

However, it is also inevitable that the rulings by the SCA yesterday clarifying the status of searches and documents related to the investigation against him and an arms company concerning alleged corruption in the arms deal will be challenged in the Constitutional Court. Zuma’s lawyer Michael Hulley said as much in a report in The Mercury where he is quoted as saying he and Zuma’s Advocate Kemp J Kemp SC will meet today to prepare a leave-to-appeal application, which they have to file within 15 days. NPA sources, however, are upbeat, telling Business Day the state was ready to charge Zuma again. ‘Everything is in place, there is nothing stopping us, we are ready to charge,’ an investigator told the paper. It says investigators alluded to possible new charges against Zuma, which could include tax evasion and perjury on top of the corruption charges. Full Business Day report Full report in The Mercury (subscription needed) Yesterday, the Appeal Court decided: * To dismiss an appeal by Zuma and French arms company Thint to stop the state from getting documents being held in Mauritius that the NPA needs as part of its investigations against the parties; * To uphold an appeal by the National Director of Public Prosecutions against a High Court order setting aside five search warrants against Zuma and his Durban-based attorney Michael Hulley, saying they were issued intelligibly and with certainty. A minority judgment agreed with the Durban court that the warrants were invalid because they did not intelligibly convey the ambit of the search; * To dismiss the appeal brought by Thint to set aside similar warrants for its Pretoria head-office; * To dismiss an appeal against a High Court order to hand all seized material back to Zuma\'s Gauteng-based attorney Juleka Mahomed.

The NPA said the judgment proved it was following the rule book. Hulley, no doubt with an eye on the ANC presidential elections just over a month away, said that how the NPA proceeds will be keenly watched as some believe that the investigation has ‘improper political motives’. He added, according to a report on the Mail & Guardian Online site: ‘The timing and nature of the charges, should these eventuate, will be reflective as to whether such motives still exist.’ Full Mail & Guardian Online report

Hulley said the next move would be to approach the Constitutional Court as both the rulings in connection with Zuma\'s appeal had strong constitutional law imperatives which impacted fundamentally on his rights. ‘In particular, in relation to the warrants of appeal, we note the dissenting judgment relating to the constitutionality of the search-and-seizure which underscores, with respect, the credence of our approach,’ said Hulley. ‘An application will be made for leave to appeal against the judgments to the Constitutional Court.’ A report on the IoL site says the Constitutional Court is scheduled to hear its last matter of the year on November 23, with a February resumption, a court official explained. However, it could still consider a late application for a hearing. The SA Communist Party, Cosatu, Congress of SA Students, and the ANC Youth League, the Umkhonto we Sizwe Military Veterans Association (MKMVA) and the Friends of Jacob Zuma Trust all issued statements in support of Zuma following the judgment. Full report on the IoL site

The SCA’s majority decision is a major step forward for the prosecution, but it does not totally complete the preparatory legal process involved in what might be described as the ‘expanded case’, and neither does it totally close off all of Zuma’s remaining legal options, says an editorial in Business Day. ‘In this sense, it’s a ‘two steps forward, one step back’ sort of process. The two steps forward, however, are big ones. The NPA has effectively achieved a clean sweep of the cases before the Appeal Court. As a consequence, it is in a better position to put its case, and the case itself will now increase in scope.’ It adds: ‘As far as the one step back is concerned – although the NPA won a clean sweep of the cases, the Appeal Court was deeply divided on many of the issues. It is not impossible, therefore, that a further appeal to the Constitutional Court will be forthcoming.’ Full Business Day editorial

But not all of the state’s victories were without controversy, notes The Mercury, which points out that two of the Appeal Court’s most senior judges found the Scorpions\' raids on Zuma and Hulley were conducted with defective warrants. Judge Ian Farlam, backed by Judge Tom Cloete, agreed with Durban High Court Judge Noel Hurt that the disputed warrants – which authorised 250 Scorpions members to collect thousands of documents from Zuma and Thint premises around the country were ‘inappropriately vague’. Farlam was, however, reluctant to order that the documents used to compile a massive forensic audit of Zuma’s financial affairs should be handed back to Zuma and his attorneys, instead recommending they be held in custody until the state decided to recharge Zuma. The majority ruling was given by Judges Robert Nugent, Nathan Ponnan and Dunstan Mlambo, finding that Hurt’s reasoning reflected an approach that was ‘fundamentally unsound’. Full report in The Mercury (subscription needed) Zuma judgment Mauritius judgment Thint judgment Juleka Mahomed judgment