The denial by Jacob Zuma's lawyer that he got secret tape recordings from the National Intelligence Agency's (NIA) deputy head warranted an investigation, the DA said on Monday.

The ANC president's lawyer Michael Hulley denied that it was NIA deputy head Arthur Fraser who gave him secret tape recordings, according to a Sunday Independent report.

"The Democratic Alliance believes that the comments made by Michael Hulley in the weekend press provide yet further evidence that the actions of both Mr Hulley and the intelligence services need to be investigated for possible wrongdoing," said Dianne Kohler Barnard, party spokesperson on safety and security.

The Sunday Independent quoted Hulley as saying: "I've never met the guy (Fraser). I didn't know that such a person existed. This is the first time I've heard his name".

On allegations that it was Fraser who gave him the tapes, Hulley said: "Categorically, no. Not even that possibility existed. There is no causal link, not even in the most obtuse way."

This, according to Kohler Barnard, implied that the tapes "were produced by private individuals outside the State intelligence services".

"How does a private citizen have such extensive knowledge of the intelligence services that he could claim to know for certain that a particular intelligence official ? who, incidentally, he claims he has never heard of before ? was not involved in the production of certain intelligence material?

"... Unless, that is, the tapes were produced by private individuals outside of the State intelligence services," she said.

A criminal investigation?

Kohler Barnard said if individuals outside the intelligence agency were involved in leaking the tapes, an investigation should be launched.

"If that were the case, it would itself warrant a criminal investigation since the interception of communication is strictly regulated by legislation and can rarely be conducted by private individuals," she said.

She slammed Hulley for saying that the DA's move to file charges in terms of the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication Related Information Act 70 of 2002, implied that he knew who the sources of the tapes were.

Hulley dismissed the DA's move as "ill-informed and ludicrous".

"This is not the case. In fact, we have stated in our submission to the Durban central police station that criminal investigations ought to take place because irrespective of whether Mr Hulley's source is a private citizen or State official, possession and distribution of intercepted communications material is strictly governed by the law," she said.

In terms of Sections 2 and 49(1) of the Act, no person may intercept, or authorise or procure any other person to intercept any communication except in certain limited circumstances, Kohler Barnard said.

"Section 51(1) of the same legislation makes violation of this provision a criminal offence," she said.

By receiving the tapes, Hulley obtained what was the property of the State, Kohler Barnard said.

The recordings played a key role in the dropping of fraud and corruption charges against ANC leader Zuma.