Zuma+roundup,+case+and+song,+Star+and+Business+Day



=Zuma judge raps state over knuckles for 'improper conduct'=


 * //Hearing to have Scorpions' search warrants and seizure of documents declared unlawful gets under way//**

The Star, Johannesburg, February 7, 2006

 * By Tania Broughton**

Jacob Zuma was stripped of his constitutional rights to privacy and silence when the Scorpions adopted its "at all costs" approach to its search and seizure raids on his homes and offices in August last year.

And their "cavalier and cynical" manner was inexplicable when his Durban-based attorney, Michael Hulley, tried to claim privilege on some of the seized documents.

This was the essence of the argument by Zuma's advocate, Kemp J Kemp, in an application before Durban High Court Judge Noel Hurt yesterday for the search warrants to be declared unlawful and the seized documents to be returned.

Zuma was there to see for himself the courtroom style of the top Durban lawyer he has also entrusted with his rape and corruption trials.

Zuma sat next to Hulley during the hearing in chairs usually reserved for advocates and attorneys.

His entry and exit through the backdoor of the court were low-key, although security was tight and the number of people allowed into the courtroom - including the media - was limited.

Kemp, assisted by advocate Michael Smithers, attacked the warrants on several grounds.

The main attack was that a provision of the National Prosecuting Authority, which allows a person to claim privilege on certain documents and ask that they be held with the High Court registrar "preserving the rights of both sides", had not been included on the warrants.

To compound this, those who conducted the raids had not brought the particular section to the attention of those being raided.

"This was a carefully planned operation involving 300 people. This issue must have been on their minds but they chose to callously and cynically disregard it," Kemp said.

The state was now suggesting that Hulley, as an attorney, should have known about the provision, implying that every lawyer carried every piece of legislation around in his head.

"I didn't know about it before," said Kemp, to which Judge Hurt admitted that neither had he. Instead, Kemp said, the state had let Hulley "stew in his own ignorance".

When Hulley attempted to claim privilege on the documents seized from his office, the state had ignored him and carried on reading them.

Later in the hearing, the judge referred to an affidavit by advocate Billy Downer, lead prosecutor in Schabir Shaik's corruption trial. Hulley had approached Downer later on the day of the raids to ask if he could peruse the documents seized from his office. He wanted to establish if they were privileged and if he could see the affidavit on which the warrants were issued.

Downer admits that he refused both requests.

The judge said: "I don't regard this as proper conduct on the part of a prosecutor."

Kemp also argued that there were "ominous" indications that the raids were an attempt by the Scorpions to establish Zuma's defence in the corruption trial because the warrants authorised seizure of "any note or comment" on the Shaik case.

Smithers argued that the warrants were "excessive and vague", saying: "There were more than 20 and were all framed in the same terms. It was one size fits all, designed to catch everything possible in the net."

Advocate Marumo Moerane, for the state, argued that the warrants were obtained legally.

He said that not all rights were of equal standing and there was "tension between privilege and the search for truth".


 * From: http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=129&fArticleId=3099783 **



=JZ's backers lash SABC over banned song=

The Star, Johannesburg, February 7, 2006

 * By Zukile Majova**

Embattled ANC deputy president Jacob Zuma's political backers in the ANC-led tripartite alliance have demanded an explanation after the SABC pulled the plug on a Zulu song about Zuma's run-ins with the law.

The decision deepened the public broadcaster's fallout with the former deputy president which was marked by the SABC's decision to cancel an interview with Zuma as the newsmaker of the year 2005.

Yesterday the alliance partners - the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the South African Communist Party, the South African National Civics Organisation, the ANC Youth League and the Young Communist League - issued a joint statement saying they had monitored with shock and dismay the SABC's treatment of Zuma and issues pertaining to him.

The song, Msholozi, by popular Maskandi group, Izingane Zoma, was removed from the playlist of the SABC's biggest radio station, Ukhozi FM.

Zuma's backers said they were preparing themselves for a "rolling mass action campaign against the SABC".

The organisations also threatened to withhold payments of TV licences saying they could not "justify the payment of licences if such institutions are to be used as tools for political campaigns and factional agendas".


 * From: http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=129&fArticleId=3099784 **



Business Day, Johannesburg, 07 February 2006

=Scorpions ‘violated Zuma’s rights’=


 * Nicola Jenvey**

KwaZulu-Natal Correspondent DURBAN — The state violated former deputy president Jacob Zuma’s rights to privacy and silence when the Scorpions raided his homes last year, the Durban High Court heard yesterday.

Zuma began his long year of gracing the benches of courts around the country yesterday when attorney Michael Hulley argued for the return of documents seized during controversial dawn raids on Zuma’s and his own homes and offices last August.

Kemp J Kemp, who will also represent Zuma during his rape trial in Johannesburg next week and in his corruption trial set down for Durban or Pietermaritzburg in July, yesterday told Judge Noel Hurt the raids had trampled on the constitutional right to attorney-client privilege and his client’s right to remain silent.

Immaculately dressed in a black pin-striped suit, Zuma remained impassive throughout the day-long proceedings. Police protection services were in force and barred most people who tried from entering court.

Only five media tickets were granted and a handful of friends and supporters were allowed into the small courtroom, raising ire among those journalists left waiting in the rain.

Several hours after the hearing began, more journalists were allowed in.

Kemp claimed the warrant should have clearly outlined the mandate for the search on August 18 and the onus lay with the state to tell Zuma and Hulley about their right to privilege.

Another Zuma lawyer, Michael Smithers, claimed the boundaries for the search and seizure had been “too wide”, in that they included diaries and photographs belonging to Zuma’s late wife.

Yesterday’s proceedings arose from an application in October to challenge the legality of the raids and recoup seized documents.

The National Prosecuting Authority is appealing a similar successful application by Johannesburg attorney Julekha Mahommed, from whom papers were seized as part of the raids.

Mahommed testified during last year’s fraud and corruption trial of Zuma’s financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, about a revolving credit loan agreement between Zuma and the businessman.

Kemp argued that the section of the National Prosecuting Act under which the raids had been granted affected Zuma’s right to silence since the state had already charged him with corruption.

In terms of the law, Zuma was obliged to answer any questions posed during the raid, which Kemp argued should be applicable only when someone was under suspicion, but not charged.

In response, state advocate Marumo Moerane said the law restricted the context and the subject matter about which an accused could be questioned, including anything that would be incriminating. The Constitution also provided for client-attorney privilege, Moerane said.

“However, the act provides for the investigation of serious criminal activities and the objective of prosecuting in the most efficient and effective manner,” he said.

Moerane said the raid was the best method for the state to get the documents as experience showed it was ineffective to summon someone suspected of fraud to answer questions.

The case resumes today.


 * From: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/national.aspx?ID=BD4A150855