State ransacked us, says Thint

FOR three days, the state has battled it out in the Supreme Court of Appeals, debating at length the validity of search and seizure warrants issued in its investigation of former deputy president Jacob Zuma.

FOR three days, the state has battled it out in the Supreme Court of Appeals, debating at length the validity of search and seizure warrants issued in its investigation of former deputy president Jacob Zuma.

Yesterday, it was Thint's turn to challenge the scope of the August 2005 warrants.

Thint, a French arms company, was Zuma's co-accused when he was charged with fraud and corruption. The case was struck off the roll last year after the court rejected the state's request for a further postponement of the trial.

Thint challenged the validity and scope of the warrants but lost in the high court and took the matter to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Peter Hodes, representing Thint, said yesterday that the state had failed to make a full disclosure of the facts to the judge who authorised the warrants.

He said that if the state had made a full disclosure the warrants would not have been granted.

Hodes argued that Thint, as early as 2001, had co-operated with the state, handing over volumes of documents and computer files.

The disputed warrants, he said, allowed the state access to documents that had no bearing on the investigation.

"[The Thint warrant] allowed a general ransacking of Thint's premises," Hodes said.

In reply, state advocate Wim Trengove said Thint's grounds for its appeal were unfounded.

Trengove, in his written heads of argument, said: "Thint's appeal should be dismissed because none of its grounds of appeal has been established.

"Even if this court should hold against us, we submit that it should order that it preserves the materials seized at Thint's offices, or at least a copy of them, because they might become vital in a future criminal trial against Thint."

Security at the court, which was packed with Zuma supporters, was tight.