Was the suspension of Vusi Pikoli an obstruction of justice?

Much has been said and speculated about the motive for the September 2007 suspension of the National Director of Public Prosecutions, Vusi Pikoli, by the former president Thabo Mbeki. Pikoli himself, the media and opposition parties have concluded that the suspension was primarily to defend the National Commissioner of Police, Jackie Selebi, from prosecution. Pikoli is convinced that his suspension came about after having informed the president that he was to charge Selebi and serve warrants of arrest on him. According to Pikoli, the president requested that he be given time to ensure that there is a suitable environment to allow for the arrest of the national commissioner of police and head of Interpol; but before he could be informed by the president whether he may proceed with the charges and arrest of Selebi, he was suspended.

It is convenient for people to arrive at the absurd conclusion that the suspension of Pikoli was intended to protect Selebi from prosecution. When examining the sequence of events following Pikoli’s suspension, nothing attested to his claims that that was indeed the case. Pikoli’s lawyer, Wim Trengove SC, said that “all events indicate the suspension was linked to attempts to stop the (national police Commissioner Jackie) Selebi investigation. It is for him (Pikoli) an important principle that the executive should not interfere (in the work of the NPA)”.

Pikoli also said in his affidavit to the Ginwala Commission of inquiry into his fitness to hold office:

“The circumstances of my suspension, its history and its aftermath, however, made it absolutely clear that there was only one reason for my suspension and one reason alone. It was to put a spoke in the wheels of the investigation and prosecution of the national Commissioner to the South African Police Service, Mr Jackie Selebi. At the time of my suspension, warrants had been obtained to arrest Mr Selebi and to search his home and office. I was suspended to stop that process in its tracks. My suspension indeed had that effect.”

Judge Nicholson, when passing his judgment on application by Zuma to have charges of corruption against him declared invalid, also supported Pikoli’s claims when he said: “There is no refutation that the Selebi warrants were cancelled by Mr Mpshe after political interference and that Pikoli was suspended because he refused to do so … it must be inferred that there was again political interference at the very time Mr Mpshe was contemplating charging the applicant … the suspension of the National Director was a most ominous move that struck at the core of a crucial State institution. Of importance to the applicant (Zuma) was the fact that Pikoli’s replacement, Mr Mpshe, who had to decide his fate, must have realised that to disobey the executive would in all probability ensure his own professional demise.”

The allegations of obstruction of justice and interference in the activities of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) by Pikoli and his lawyer as well as Judge Nicholson are very serious. If indeed there is truth to these claims, Mbeki has committed an offence for which charges should be brought against him. If credible evidence exists to substantiate such serious allegations of abuse of power and obstruction of justice, the law must take its course. There is a meeting of minds among all of us that principle of equality before the law must be upheld. No person is above the law!

Following the suspension of Pikoli, the warrants of arrest were cancelled by the acting National Director of Public Prosecutions, Mokotedi Mpshe, pending a review of charges against Selebi. Mpshe confirmed that Mbeki had never interfered in the probe or influenced his decision to withdraw the Selebi arrest warrant, nor his failed attempts to get a search and seizure warrant against Selebi withdrawn. Mbeki had been informed of the decision to charge Selebi as a matter of courtesy by the NPA and that does not in anyway suggest executive interference in the prosecutorial process. The same occurred when Jacob Zuma was about to be charged; and the discredited Nicholson judgment inferred that it was plausible that there could have been executive interference in the decision to charge Zuma.

Pikoli’s claims of executive interference raise questions on how Selebi could have subsequently been charged in the Randburg Regional Court after his suspension with three counts of corruption and one of defeating the ends of justice, if indeed the president was so determined to protect the national police commissioner at all costs. The obstruction of justice appears to have been orchestrated from the office of the national police commissioner. It was revealed during the Ginwala Commission that the acting police commissioner, Tim Williams and the head of National Intelligence Agency (NIA), Manala Manzini had attempted to frustrate the case against Selebi. Williams had allegedly not been very cooperative when requested by Pikoli and subsequently by Mpshe to hand over certain information relating to Glen Agliotti, John Stratton and Selebi.

It was also rather irresponsible for a judge of the High Court to insinuate that Mbeki had interfered with the prosecutorial process to charge Selebi, given the fact that Selebi was subsequently charged. Nicholson failed to mention this important fact when in haste to give credence to ridiculous claims by Zuma that there had been political mechanisation behind corruption charges against him. However, Nicholson was gracious enough to admit on hearing the NPA’s application for leave to appeal his judgment that he may have erred and another judge may find his conclusions absolute rubbish.

The important question the media should be asking is whether Mbeki did disclose to parliament the pair of shoes that were allegedly bought for him by Glen Agliotti and delivered by Selebi. Agliotti in his affidavit said: “I also know that he took one pair of shoes for the president, Thabo Mbeki, on my account. His shoe size is a 43 and he told [me] that the president had small feet which were broad and therefore he required a size 7 in a soft leather … I have no personal relationship with the president and only bought the shoes because it enhanced my relationship with Jackie.”

Tony Yengeni was guilty of defrauding parliament by failing to disclose a discount on a luxury Mercedes-Benz 4×4 and sentenced to four years imprisonment. Again the principle of equality before the law needs to be upheld. Has Mbeki disclosed this gift in accordance with the parliamentary rules? The allegations of interference are baseless and outrageous as no evidence has been put forward to substantiate them. These allegations appear to be a sign of desperation on the part of those who are eager to exonerate themselves from any wrongdoing or lapse of good judgment; as well as those looking for the “smoking gun” to pin the former president down. There was no political interference, “finish and klaar!”