NPA disputes Zuma's claims over warrants

The NPA wants to use the seized documents for the upcoming Zuma and Thint corruption trial

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) is currently in court answering to claims by Jacob Zuma, that warrants issued to raid his home in 2005 were vague and too broad. A senior advocate arguing the NPA's case before the Constitutional Court says litigation of this kind gives justice a bad name.

The NPA says it is not asking for the door to be closed on litigants, but says they should not be allowed to circumvent Section 35 of the Constitution through approaching the courts in this way.

Zuma, his attorney Michael Hulley and French Arms manufacturer, Thint, say their constitutional rights were infringed when their premises were raided by the Scorpions in 2005 as part of the Zuma probe. They claim the warrants used to execute the raids were unlawful. They are asking for leave to appeal an earlier court ruling which declared the warrants lawful.