Publication: Business Day Issued: Date: 2007-10-08 Reporter:

Stitching Up Pikoli

 

Publication 

Business Day

Date 2007-10-08

Web Link

www.businessday.co.za

 

Something doesn’t feel right about the way President Thabo Mbeki has been able first to suspend the head of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), Vusi Pikoli, in the most controversial circumstances, and to then be allowed to frame, with precision, the boundaries of the official enquiry into that decision.

Having asked former National Assembly speaker Frene Ginwala to hold an inquiry, Mbeki has subsequently framed it in terms which, knavishly, avoid any reference to the integrity and lawfulness of the suspension in the first place.

Instead, Ginwala is merely to decide whether Pikoli was a fit person to hold the office of NPA director in the first place. In a clear attempt to stitch Pikoli up, the questions are asked whether or not, in his work, he bore in mind the “national interest” or “the public interest” and they are clearly to be answered by Justice Minister Bri-gitte Mabandla, if not Mbeki, with a slew of legal deals Pikoli has made, with a view to proving he did not.

Their approach could not have been better stated than the opening paragraph of the front-page lead story in The Star of Johannesburg yesterday: “Suspended prosecuting head Vusi Pikoli stands accused of making deals with murderers ­ including the men who allegedly killed Brett Kebble ­ in his efforts to nail National Police Commissioner Jackie Selebi.”

That’s it in a nutshell, and no doubt every plea bargain entered into by the prosecutorial service since Pikoli’s appointment is now going to be dusted off and examined in an effort to nail him.

Only a leadership in a state of some disrepair would seriously argue that the removal (not necessarily the arrest) of Selebi from his post was not in the public or national interest.

At issue is Pikoli’s apparent willingness to save Glenn Agliotti from prosecution for killing Kebble (he has already admitted in court that he “assisted” Kebble to commit suicide) in exchange for truthful testimony about his (Agliotti’s) relationship with Selebi.

Mbeki’s and Mabandla’s apparent objections to this ring hollow, laced as they have to be with the political pressures they are under.

It is simply fair to assume that Pikoli obtained warrants for the police chief’s arrest out of frustration at Mbeki’s hesitancy to remove him himself, especially ahead of the ANC’s elective conference this December.

It’s no good sitting around saying to the public “bring us the proof” as Mbeki and his police minister have regarding Selebi and then, when someone like Pikoli does, not wanting to hear it.

Our country is being held hostage to Mbeki’s own political ambitions *1 and history will not be kind to him for it.

An immediate way out of the mess he has made for himself would be for Mbeki to fire or suspend Selebi too. It seems most of his cabinet want him to and the public would be satisfied for long enough for Mbeki to win or lose in December.

But there’s no reason to expect Mbeki ever to do the obvious. He will believe he has acted fairly and reasonably. He could not be more wrong. The country aches for leadership and yet all it is ever served is intrigue.

At the risk of repeating ourselves, Mbeki should pull himself out of the ANC leadership race now and give someone the political space seriously to confront Jacob Zuma.

With acknowledgements to Business Day.



*1      The time has come, The Walrus said, to talk of whether kings are cabbages whether to hold an enquiry into whether Thabo Mbeki is a fit and proper person to hold kingly office.


First up, M'Lord, on behalf of The People, I would like to ask this witness about his memory and whether he can remember meeting three of the most senior executives of Thomson-CSF International in their offices in Paris, France on or about 17 December 1997.

Second up, M'Lord, on behalf of The People, I would like to ask this witness that if he says he cannot remember, then why can he not remember when he received formal acknowledgement of such meeting the day following the alleged meeting, as did his ambassador to France?

or :

Does this witness say the French are liars?

or :

If he can suddenly remember this meeting after its factual reality being jogged back into his memory by perusal of said written acknowledgements of said meeting and/or quick perusal of 1997 deputy kingly diary, then what on earth was this meeting about?