Thint (Pty) Ltd v National Director of Public Prosecutions; Zuma and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions

The cases concerned the validity and execution of several search and seizure warrants issued in terms of section 29 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act 32 of 1998 during investigations into alleged corruption, fraud, money laundering and tax offences linked to the arms deal. The warrants were issued by a High Court judge and executed in August 2005 at various premises connected to Thint (Pty) Ltd, Jacob Zuma, and Zuma’s attorney, Michael Hulley. Large volumes of documents and electronic material were seized. Thint, Zuma and Hulley challenged the lawfulness of the warrants, arguing that they were overly broad, vague, and unconstitutional, and that their execution infringed rights to privacy, dignity and legal professional privilege.

Leave to appeal was granted. The appeals were upheld in part. The Constitutional Court set aside the search warrants to the extent that they were overbroad and declared their terms unconstitutional. It issued directions regulating the retention, use and return of seized material, including procedures to protect legally privileged documents.

The case is a leading authority on constitutionally compliant search and seizure in South Africa. It clarified the limits of investigative powers under the NPA Act, reinforced the prohibition on general warrants, and strengthened judicial oversight over intrusive investigative measures, especially in politically sensitive and high-profile prosecutions.