WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2008-03-13 Time: 00:00:00 Posted By: Jan
By Karyn Maughan and Tania Broughton
Two of South Africa’s most respected senior advocates clashed sharply during a marathon second day of ANC president Jacob Zuma’s gruelling Constitutional Court battle.
Wednesday’s hearing started an hour early and finished two hours late, and the extended session saw tempers fray among the high-powered legal teams.
Late Wednesday afternoon, state senior counsel Wim Trengove SC lost his cool after the National Prosecuting Authority was repeatedly accused of “egregious” (outrageous) behaviour by Peter Hodes SC, counsel for Zuma’s corruption co-accused, French arms company Thint.
“I object!” a visibly agitated Trengove called from his seat, after Hodes refused to back down from his attack on the State’s use of legally disputed documents to conduct a forensic audit into Zuma’s financial affairs.
Using Pietermaritzburg High Court Judge Herbert Msimang’s 2006 judgment as backing, Hodes said Trengove and Scorpions prosecutor Billy Downer SC had themselves stated that the State “took their chances” by doing so.
It was at this point that Trengove responded with anger to what he described as Hodes’s “belated attack… which is utterly unfounded and quite wrong”.
Earlier, Zuma’s advocate, Kemp J Kemp SC, denied that his client’s purpose in challenging the State over the warrants used to raid homes and offices belonging to Zuma, his attorney and Thint, amounted to a delaying tactic.
“If we had wanted to do that, we would not have brought this application,” Kemp said.
“Do you have any idea what delays that would have caused, especially if we had won the point and the State had had to go on appeal? All we want to know is what documents we are facing at trial.”
Pointing out that Zuma had been charged with corruption in June 2005 and the raids had been carried out in August, Kemp said Zuma had “had two months to burn things if he wanted to”.
Zuma and Thint CEO Pierre Moynot sat through the entire hearing.
Today the pair are expected to return to court to hear Trengove argue against their efforts to stop the NPA receiving the originals of 13 documents used to convict Zuma’s former confidante and financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, from the Mauritian authorities.
Their legal bid to challenge raids conducted on their homes and offices, as well as the offices of Zuma’s attorney Michael Gulley, will have a significant impact on the way in which they are tried for corruption and other racketeering charges later this year.