It came as no surprise that Judge Meyer Joffe decided yesterday to reject the application by former Police Commissioner, Jackie Selebi, to have the corruption charges against him dismissed. Selebi will now have to take the stand in his own defense because he has to convince the court that an array of state witnesses lied when they claimed he received money and other benefits worth well over R1 million from Glen Agliotti. Selebi maintains that he only ever received a Swiss Army Knife from Agliotti.
Selebi is being prosecuted partly in terms of the old Corruption Act of 1992 and partly in terms of the new Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act of 2004. The new Act is an excellent piece of legislation that casts the net for corruption very wide indeed. Any public official who accepts any gratification – which would include money, donations, gifts or any other real or pretended aid – and then, because of receiving that gratification, acts illegally, dishonestly or in a biased manner will be guilty of the crime of corruption. A public official who had taken such a gratification and had then acted in a manner that amounted to an abuse of power or a breach of trust would also be guilty of the offence of corruption.
The Act makes clear that when the state has proven that a public official has taken any money or other benefit from a private citizen, that public official will be in deep trouble if it can be shown that the public official then performed or did not perform an official act or even where that official showed “any favour or disfavour” to any person in performing a function as a public official.
I suspect this is why Selebi’s lawyers have put up the Swiss Army Knife defence. They claim that Selebi has never received any money or other benefit (like clothes or donations for an Interpol dinner) for either himself or his family from Agliotti, bar a Swiss Army Knife which Agliotti allegedly gave him. (Agliotti said during his testimony that he would never have given Selebi such a cheap gift!)
This defence might have seemed plausible because there is no paper trial of money changing hands between Agliotti and Selebi (if money ever did change hands) and because Agliotti – as the state’s star witness – has a serious credibility problem. The problem for Selebi and the defense is that at least some of Agliotti’s testimony about the “gifts” and “donations” given to Selebi was corroborated by other witnesses who seemed far more credible than Agliotti. The blanket denial by Selebi of ever receiving any money or other benefits from Agliotti might therefore come back to haunt him as it might affect Selebi’s credibility as a witness.
But I suspect Selebi had no other choice but to deny ever receiving any money or benefits from Agliotti. This is because the 2004 corruption act casts the net so wide and evidence – including phone records and testimony about how Agliotti used his connections with Selebi to arrange introduction between Selebi and various crooked businessmen - seem to show that Agliotti did indeed receive special treatment from Selebi (had thus “showed him a favour”). Once the state has thus shown beyond reasonable doubt that Selebi had received any “gratification” from Agliotti, Selebi would be in serious trouble.
That is why Selebi will now have to take the stand to deny ever receieving any money from Agliotti. This is, of course, a gamble as Selebi will be subjected to cross examination. Apart from some weirdo’s on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), most lawyers agree that good cross-examination can be rather lethal to anyone who is not telling the truth. This is because it becomes very difficult to keep one’s story straight while being cross-examined when one is not telling the truth. (Just ask Menzi Simelane whose credibility was completely destroyed by Wim Trengove during cross examination at the Ginwala Inqiury.)
It might be that both Agliotti and the other state witnesses are lying and that Selebi really never received any “gratification” from Agliotti. In that case, Selebi should be fine as he will only have to tell his story and stick to it. If, however, he is lying about receiving any money or benefits from Agliotti his credibility might be severely compromised under cross-examination. Because he is denying receiving the money, it is also not possible for Selebi to argue that he did receive the money and that he did do some favours for Agliotti but that he had no intention of being corrupt.
The blanket denial about receiving any money from Agliotti has thus boxed in the defence. Selebi will have to give the performance of a life time on the stand. Otherwise he might have to develop deadly hypertension and request medical parole to die a dignified and quiet death in order to avoid a 15 year prison sentence.
Finish and klaar
But why didn’t Selebi claim political conspiracy and come up with a struggle song to gunner support?
“Just ask Menzi Simelane whose credibility was completely destroyed by Wim Trengove during cross examination at the Ginwala Inqiury.”
The same enquiry which got Pikoli fired and Simelane promoted?
“Selebi will have to give the performance of a life time on the stand.”
Methinks you’re over enthusiastic.
What’s gonna happen if he gives a dull performance.
First the trial has to be completed – maybe some rabbit will pop out a hat.
If he’s found guilty – then what?
Appeal, more appeals …
Jail?
Pardon?
Someone remind me which powerful person in our country went to jail for such crimes (and stayed there) in the past 15 years!
Maggs Naidu says: April 13, 2010 at 12:31 pm
“Someone remind me which powerful person in our country went to jail for such crimes (and stayed there) in the past 15 years!”
Tony Yengeni….or does it not count because he stayed there for a couple of months and came back only to drive, inter alia, a Maseratti?
mzo says:
April 13, 2010 at 13:24 pm
Hey Mzo,
Yengeni was one of several people who received “discounts”.
If he was not dispensable at the time he would not have been targeted.
Fall guys are not usually powerful.
Excuse me, student? “Gunner” support? Was that a Freudian slip, or are you just terrible at spelling? Really … I despair for the future of this country!
Is it too late for Selebi to make representations to the NPA? That gambit seems to work very well for the politically connected.
Of course, as the Prof says, being pardoned a la Shaik will always be an available viable option.
Selebi was a staunch Mbeki man, was he not? I’m not so sure the present ANC regime could care less about him. They might even let him face the music to build their own severely tarnished credibility.
Yep, I agree with the sacrificial lamb theory too. A sacrificial lamb with fat, polished trousers. We might even see what Juju feels about what is in those trousers. Juju is so desperate to hold onto his R52m when he can obviously already hear those cell doors in what passes for his mind, that he is trying to start a race war. Juju is probably next for the jump. In the Big House, not the revolutionary house. LOL! It would be typical to try cause another diversion by piling into Jackie. Or portraying him as a martyr.
Maggs might reflect on the time that NP ministers and prominent members spent in the slammer. Like Pietie.
Please do not miss the woods for the trees though. Jackie and his buddy Nqakula might very well have wasted as much of your tax$$$$ as the ANC did on the Arms Deal when they just plain laughed off the rule of law and the Constitution when they refused to comply with S137 of the FCA which required them to pay compensation for surrendered firearms.
Nathi Mthethwa is persisting with the charade of implementation of the FCA. Including the roll-out of compensation. I hope those of you who specialise in damages claims are ready.
I will be patiently waiting for the tapes that Selebi’s counsel’s chambers was bugged on a privelleged occasion – leading to inadmisssible evidence – unfair trial – and Selebi off the hook.
and what about corruption being a bilateral crime – agglioti not having been truthful and therefore not entitled to indemnity – not being tried with selebi . talk about a belt and braces approach to stay out of jail – fairly educated criminals doing business in south africa that may soon outwit even our esteemed constitutional authority embodied in prof.
One should not read too much in a court’s refusal to discharge at the end of the state’s case. Jacob Zuma was also denied a discharge at the close of the case for the prosecution.
The matter that really irks me is the approach of the NPA and the previous Scorpions, which Gerald’s post seems to touch on. Why is it that the approach is that there is an inherent expectation that the businessperson is supposed to be corrupt and therefore only doing what is natural and therefore granted amnesty to provide ‘evidence’ against the member of State? This approach denotes that only members of State can really be guilty of corruption, businesspersons are supposed to entice them and are guilty of nothing! It says a lot about the ethics within the enforcement and prosecution arms, and quite possibly also about the ideological views of the legal profession in general.
I absolutely agree, Donovan.
People who pay Metro cops bribes to avoid speeding fines instead of taking them behind a tree have the blood of innocent children on their hands. They fuel the culture prevalent in vehicle registration centres that it is OK, to take money to issue a fake vehicle registration, no harms is done. Meanwhile, a kid might have been shot for that hijacked car.
Die deler is net so goed soos die steler.
quidnunc says:
April 13, 2010 at 15:12 pm
Excuse me, student? “Gunner” support? Was that a Freudian slip, or are you just terrible at spelling? Really … I despair for the future of this country!
Quidnunc, “gunner” is Shona for garner as any Rex Tarr fan worth his salt would know!
Rumpelstiltskin says:
April 14, 2010 at 20:39 pm
The objective of the support gunner is to supress the enemy, defend an area, or to take out a large group of enemies.
Chris says:
April 14, 2010 at 20:58 pm
“The objective of the support gunner is to supress the enemy, defend an area, or to take out a large group of enemies.”
That clarifies why Brett disapproves of “(p)eople who pay Metro cops bribes to avoid speeding fines instead of taking them behind a tree”.
Far be it from me to convince someone aspiring to be the next Shaky Shabir that corrupt cops deserve a good hiding.