Zuma ‘not using delaying tactics’ – Kemp

According to a Cape Times report, Kemp J Kemp told the Constitutional Court yesterday that Zuma’s attempt to challenge warrants used to raid homes and offices belonging to him, his attorneys and French arms company Thint was really about fighting against the constitutional violations he had suffered at the state’s hands. According to Kemp, Zuma’s legal team was concerned that should the state’s ‘unlawful’ raids not be reined in by the court, his attorney and defence witnesses would also be vulnerable to search and seizure operations. ‘It may affect the way we prepare for trial… We may well tell Mr Zuma to prepare without notes,’ he said. Kemp also denied Zuma's purpose in suing the state over the warrants amounted to a delaying tactic. ‘If we had wanted to do that, we would not have brought this application. We would have sprung this on them on the first day of trial,’ he said. Zuma’s attempt to have search-and-seizure raids as well as a letter requesting documents from Mauritius ruled invalid was set to enter a third day today. Originally, only two days were set aside for the court to hear an application to appeal a Supreme Court of Appeal ruling, but yesterday Chief Justice Pius Langa ordered that the court reconvene today (Thursday) to finish proceedings, but not before the court had reserved judgment on the raids. Full Cape Times report (subscription needed)

Arguing for the State that the warrants were valid, Advocate Wim Trengove added: ‘We are sure that we have a case (against Zuma), not merely a prima facie case, but a case with a reasonable prospect of conviction.’ And according to a report on the News24 site he noted that while the searches had to be done in a dignified manner that respected privacy, the person being searched was not entitled to start challenging the state's interpretation of the authority at the time. He said the admissibility of the documents could also be decided at trial. Full report on the News24 site

On the issue of the documents from Mauritius, Kemp said that allowing them to be ‘imported’ would ‘negate’ the Zuma legal team's ability to challenge them in court. Kemp said that if the letter of request authorised by Judge Phillip Levensohn in April 2007 was allowed to stand, then ‘the evidence cannot be challenged’. He added: ‘We want someone to testify about those documents so that we can cross-examine them.’ Levensohn authorised the letter of request in terms of section 2(2) of the International Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act. Kemp argued yesterday, according to a Mail & Guardian Online report, that the NPA was not entitled to use that section of the Act to obtain the documents. The documents include the 2000 diary of Alain Thetard, the former chief executive of Thales International's SA subsidiary, Thint. It details a meeting in March 2000 between him, Zuma and convicted Durban businessman Schabir Shaik, where the NPA alleges that an agreement on a R500 000-a-year bribe for Zuma was reached. Kemp contended that the state did not need the documents for investigative purposes as it already had copies, which were ‘brought here in an improper way’. Judge Hilary Squires accepted copies of the documents as evidence in the case where he convicted Shaik. Justice Kate O'Regan questioned the constitutional issues raised in seeking to have the letter of request set aside. ‘It's not immediately clear to me what the constitutional issue is to exclude these documents,’ she said. Kemp replied that the NPA had not complied with the terms and conditions of the ICC Act and the letter should be declared invalid. Full report on the Mail & Guardian Online site