There has indeed been a heated discussion about the raids carried out on the offices of Jacob Zuma's lawyers. So, for instance, the front page article in the Sunday Independent (August 21), "Legal anger erupts over Zuma raids", in which it is reported that members of the legal fraternity are outraged by the raids carried out by the Scorpions in search of documents related to the forthcoming trial of the former Deputy President, Jacob Zuma.

What is at stake here is a very serious threat to attorney-client confidentiality relationships. Throughout our legal and constitutional history our courts have been assertive in jealously protecting the relationship of professional privilege between attorney and client. This privilege has its origin in our ancient common law and continues to exist by virtue of the provisions of the Bill of Rights.

A trenchant illustration of the operation of the protection of this privilege is found in the case of Heiman, Maasdorp & Barker versus Secretary for Inland Revenue handed down in 1968. The question that arose in this case was whether the Secretary for Inland Revenue using statutory authority could demand the production of specified documents in the possession of attorneys, Heiman, Maasdorp & Barker, thereby overriding the fundamental common-law privilege relating to non-disclosure of confidential information arising in an attorney-client relationship.

The court unequivocally upheld the fundamental principle of non-disclosure of confidential information in the common law with the following cogent apology, stating that "this well-established rule is to be found throughout our jurisprudence and has repeatedly been described as sacrosanct and inviolate".

This privilege is of fundamental importance for the professional responsibility of the legal profession, and it is understandable that both the Law Society and the South African Bar Council have expressed their concern relating to the raids carried out.

Even under our previous, discredited legal system during the apartheid era, our courts diligently protected attorney- client privilege. Exemplary in this regard was the judgment of the former Appellate Division of the Supreme Court's decision in the criminal case of the State versus Mushimba in 1977.

In this case the Appellate Division found that there had been a very serious breach of confidentiality because a member of the staff of attorneys who had defended the accused persons had leaked information to the SA Police. The court found that this constituted a miscarriage of justice and set aside the convictions.

If the raid of the Scorpions has indeed breached the confidentiality relationship between Zuma and his legal representatives, it could have very serious consequences for the trial of Zuma and a mistrial is a distinct possibility.

This will be for the courts to decide and ultimately the Constitutional Court will have to pronounce on the nature and ambit of attorney-client confidentiality.

Although the Scorpions have important tasks to fulfil, they are subject to the constitution and the law of the land. They cannot behave as a law unto themselves as the Security Police did in the apartheid era. Furthermore, the search warrant issued by the judge must also comply with the provisions of the constitution and the law.

This is a matter of fundamental principle for our system of democratic government. South Africans, having achieved and created a democratic system of government, need to defend it against the predations of those in the new body politic who prove to be power-hungry and unscrupulous.

With acknowledgements to George Devenish and the Cape Times.