Read http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1727-37812014000300007. This paper discusses asset forfeiture referring to two ConCourt cases, Prophet v and Mohunram v NDPP. It does so in a more learned (ahem) and balanced way than Ivo. 
There's two stages: 1. restraint stage before and 2. confiscation and realisation stage after conviction. 
Re. S v Zuma (!): With 'POCA the state need only prove a balance of probabilities. This appears to violate presumption of innocence because a reasonable doubt can exist regardless of the balance of probabilities standard having being met'.
The ConCourt is liberal and has always affirmed social justice (it rejected the prescription rule for suing the state), so given the brief facts Prophet gave, why he lost his unclear. But POCA is important if used properly and not subject to abuse, as often laws and regulations are by officials for venal and political ends, or through plain negligence and incompetence.