Mikey Schultz and the section-204 indemnity

While much has been written about the sacking of the National Prosecuting Authority’s Vusi Pikoli and the indemnities handed out to, inter alia, Mikey Schultz, Nigel McGurk and Faizel Smith, one important issue still has be clarified.

Regardless of whether you feel the Scorpions were right or wrong in handing out these indemnities in terms of section 204 of the Criminal Procedures Act 51 of 1977, they must be recognised and left intact.

To do otherwise would create a major headache for the police and Scorpions in the future.

No criminal attorney in his right mind would recommend to a client entering into a deal whereby he confesses to, for example, murder, that could be overturned if there is public or even government outrage.

The whole point in making this dangerous decision is to avoid being sent to jail. You agree to testify against other dangerous criminals in return for your freedom. If that is overturned, your position is untenable.

If the attorneys won’t assist the police and state in motivating these to clients, then many of the more serious criminals may escape being brought to justice. Why would anyone risk their lives by agreeing to testify, if this could result in their being imprisoned with the very parties they were to testify against?

Section 204 is there to assist in bringing criminals to justice who would otherwise have avoided prosecution. Without it, the work of the state and the police would become that much harder.

I have no involvement in this matter and have never met any of the participants. I do know, however, that the legal fraternity is carefully monitoring the outcome of the ongoing squabble between the state security entities with keen interest.

Much of it is being driven by political factors within and outside of the security organisations themselves.

It is imperative that the parties involved realise that the manner in which these issues are resolved has long-term ramifications for all South Africans.

Overturning or even attempting to overturn the agreements reached by Pikoli is just one example.

Whatever other charges the police may be seeking to press against these section-204 witnesses is over to them. That falls outside the scope of this debate. The deals that have already been done must however be honoured.

That is in everyone’s interests.