| Thint v NDPP | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Constitutional Court of South Africa |
| Full case name | Thint (Pty) Ltd v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others; Zuma and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others |
| Decided | 31 July 2008 |
| Docket nos. | CCT 89/07, CCT 91/07 |
| Citations | [2008] ZACC 13; 2008 (2) SACR 421 (CC); 2009 (1) SA 1 (CC); 2008 (12) BCLR 1197 (CC) |
| Case history | |
| Prior actions | In the Supreme Court of Appeal:
In the High Court of South Africa:
|
| Related actions | Thint Holdings and Another v NDPP; Zuma v NDPP [2008] ZACC 14 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Langa DCJ, O’Regan ACDJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Nkabinde J, Ngcobo J, Skweyiya J, van der Westhuizen J, Yacoob J, Jafta AJ and Kroon AJ |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Langa CJ (O'Regan, Jafta, Kroon, Madala, Mokgoro, Nkabinde, Skweyiya, van der Westhuizen and Yacoob concurring) |
| Dissent | Ngcobo J |
Thint (Pty) Ltd v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others; Zuma and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others is a 2008 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the area of criminal procedure. It concerns the lawfulness of search and seizure warrants issued in terms of section 29 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, 1998 in the course of an investigation into serious economic crime. The court implemented several tests for the lawfulness of such warrants and confirmed that the state was not required to provide notice to the subjects of such warrants.
The case was notable partly because of the identity of its plaintiffs: the warrants under scrutiny were issued during the Scorpions' investigation into the Arms Deal and related allegations of corruption by former Deputy President Jacob Zuma and Thales subsidiary Thint. A ten-member majority of the court upheld the warrants as lawful, with only Justice Sandile Ngcobo dissenting. In the interim, while the judgment was reserved, the Constitutional Court bench laid a complaint with the Judicial Service Commission alleging that Judge John Hlophe, claiming to act on behalf of Zuma, had attempted improperly to influence the opinions of Justices Bess Nkabinde and Chris Jafta.