Concourt ruling feeds conspiracy

The Constitutional Court ruling on the validity of search-and-seizure warrants, obtained by the Scorpions to raid Jacob Zuma's and his lawyers' properties, will not only reinforce the belief that our justice system can't fulfil a basic legal requirement, but also instigate a possible legitimacy crisis.

The Constitutional Court ruling on the validity of search-and-seizure warrants, obtained by the Scorpions to raid Jacob Zuma's and his lawyers' properties, will not only reinforce the belief that our justice system can't fulfil a basic legal requirement, but also instigate a possible legitimacy crisis.

The ruling has far-reaching implications for client-lawyer confidentiality. Right to legal representation will mean nothing to those in power in their quest for a particular agenda.

It implies that law enforcement can be used as a private army to mislead or coerce courts into issuing vague and open-ended warrants bordering on selective and subjective justice to settle political scores.

The court failed to consistently uphold the principles of justice with due regard to the Bill of Rights.

What does not bode well for justice is that the court failed to appreciate that the state used the Scorpions to pursue Zuma with corruption emanating from the arms deal, yet primary beneficiaries were never charged or convicted.

The NPA never asked President Thabo Mbeki to answer, under oath, allegations that he met the German company that won an arms deal contract.

The judges' dubious judgment feeds the suspicion of conspiracy about Zuma's broader political trial.

Morgan Phaahla, Ekurhuleni

X