IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT
(JOHANNESBURG)
CASE NO: 25/09
DATE:5/07/2010
In the matter between:
THE STATE
and
JACOB SELLO SELEBI
JUDGMENT

6. The accused pleaded not guilty to all the charges. He furnished a plea explanation in terms of section 115 of the Criminal Procedure Act, No 51 of 1977 ("CPA"). In essence the accused denied all the allegations made against him. In addition, the accused contended that this prosecution is not bona fide and was instituted with an ulterior motive in an attempt to discredit him and to ensure the continued existence of the Directorate Special Operations ("DSO"). In order to place the plea explanation in its proper perspective it should be noted that the DSO (commonly referred to as the Scorpions), was a unit within the National Prosecuting Authority   ("NPA").   The   National   Director   of  Public Prosecutions is the head of the NPA. As far as is relevant to the plea explanation, Mr Bulelani Ngcuka ("Ngcuka") and Mr Busumzi Patrick Pikoli ("Pikoli") were the Directors of Public Prosecutions. Pikoli succeeded Ngcuka in that position on 1  February 2005. Reverting to the plea explanation it is stated therein that: 

6.1 The relationship between the accused, as the National Commissioner of SAPS, and the DSO deteriorated substantially in the years preceding 2005 because the accused supported the view that the DSO acted beyond their mandate by involving themselves in local and foreign   intelligence   matters   not   relating   to   the investigation of criminal matters in the Republic of South Africa and that the DSO should be dissolved and incorporated into the SAPS;

6.2 Details are then given of information obtained by the accused during the latter half of 2005 in regard to Ngcuka during his term as National Director of Public Prosecutions and also as head of the DSO and Pikoli during his term as National Director of Public Prosecutions.

6.4 Toward the end of 2005 the accused summoned Pikoli to his office to discuss the above issues. At that time Pikoli was the National Director of Public Prosecutions. 

6.7 The   accused's  above  conduct   caused   a  further deterioration in his relationship with the NPA and the DSO. The accused then points out that it must be borne in mind that the National Director of Public Prosecutions is the person ultimately responsible and in control of the DSO. The accused adds that it must also be remembered that the question of the further existence of the DSO was reaching a climax at that stage.

6.9 The accused points out that it should be noted that whilst Ngcuka was at this stage no longer the Director of Public Prosecutions he exerted huge pressure on one McCarthy, the then head of the DSO, to proceed with the campaign against the accused.

8. It should perhaps just be mentioned at this stage that Pikoli did not directly succeed Ngcuka. Dr Ramaite ("Ramaite") appears to have been the acting head of the NPA prior to the appointment of Pikoli.

9. The trial commenced on 5 October 2009. On that day the charges were put to the accused. The accused pleaded and tendered the plea explanation already referred to.

10. The state called its first witness, Agliotti, on 5 October 2009.

11. Whilst Agliotti was testifying in chief, the accused's counsel objected to the leading of certain evidence on the grounds that the evidence fell out of the time frame provided for in the charge sheet. The accused's counsel pointed out that the state was seeking to elicit evidence of the disclosure of certain documents by the accused to Agliotti. The one document was referred to during the trial as the UK report and the other document as an e-mail. In regard to the former document Agliotti was about to testify that the UK report was handed to him during July or August 2006. In regard to the latter document Agliotti was in the process of testifying that it had been handed to him by the accused in 2006.

November 2006 prior to amendment. The accused sought particulars in regard thereto and was given the same replies as are set out above.

18. After the amendment was granted the state continued leading Agloitti's evidence. On the completion thereof Agliotti was cross examined for a period of 9 days.

35. After the refusal of the recusal application the cross examination of Agliotti continued. Prior to the completion of the cross examination of Agliotti, the defence handed up an application for a special entry in terms of s 317 of the CPA. The application stood down to furnish the state an opportunity of dealing with it. Later it was ruled that it would be dealt with at the conclusion of the trial. During argument at the conclusion of the trial the accused's counsel indicated that they were not pursuing the application for a special entry at this stage but reserved the accused's right to do so in the event of the accused being convicted.

37.Thereafter the accused launched an application for his discharge in terms of s 174 of the CPA. The application was dismissed on 12 April 2010. The following order was made:

39.    The following witnesses testified on behalf of the state in the sequence that their names are set out hereunder.

She is the Chief Executive Officer of Maverick Experience Exhilarator (Pty) Ltd, She was the former fiancee of Agliotti.

He is the Financial Director of Maverick Experience Exhilarator (Pty) Ltd. He is the father of Muller.

He is a director and employee of KPMG Services (Pty) Ltd. He is employed in its forensic business unit.

He was a policeman from December 1984 to March 1998 when he resigned. He thereafter worked in the private security industry.

She is a Chief Forensic Examiner of the Special Investigation Unit. From 1984 to 2006 she was a member of SAPS. She was attached to the Serious and Violent Crime Unit.

He is a police reservist in the SAPS with the rank of Superintendant. In 2005 he was the head reservist at the Sandton Police Station.

He is a Commissioner in the SAPS. In 1999 he was appointed Section Head of Intelligence Centres. On 1 February 2008 his designation changed to Head of Operation Intelligence Analysis Coordination.

He is a Commissioner in the SAPS attached to Crime Intelligence.

He is a Senior Superintendant in the SAPS attached to Crime Intelligence.

He is a bookkeeper and payroll administrator in the employ of Surtee Esquire (Pty) Ltd.

He is director of African Renaissance Holdings Company. This company owns a minority shareholding in Maverick Experience Exhitarator (Pty) Ltd.

He was the National Director of Public Prosecutions from 1 February 2005 until his suspension by the former President of South Africa, President Mbeki, on 23 September 2007.

He lived in South Africa between 1990 and 1999. He was involved in various business enterprises in South Africa. Fearing his arrest he left South Africa in late November 2009.

He is a Superintendent in the employ of the SAPS. He is attached to Crime Intelligence.

He is employed by the Grays group where he runs the computer system and the warehouse. The Grays Group is part of Surtee Esquire (Pty) Ltd.

He was a member of SAPS. In 2000 he was appointed in the Directorate of Special Operations at the rank of Senior Special Investigator. He was appointed in 2001 to the rank of Chief Special Investigator and to head the Special National Project in the Directorate of Special Operations' head office. He is the Chief Investigator in the matter against the accused.

During the period March 2005 to October 2007 he occupied the post of coordinator for intelligence which post was established by the National Strategic Intelligence Act.
39.19     Senior Superintendent Annette Lombard ("Lombard").
She is a member of SAPS and is employed in the finance department at SAPS head quarters.

42.1     Brigadier S de Beer.
From 2004 she was the spokesperson for the National Commissioner of SAPS.

She was an employee of SAPS and she was the accused's personal assistant.

He is a member of SAPS and as such is the head of Interpol in South Africa.

He is currently the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Pretoria. From April 2002 until his suspension from office on 28 January 2009 he was the Regional Head of the DSO in Kwa Zulu Natal.

He is the senior manager enforcement in the employ of the National Prosecuting Authority.

He is an employee of the South African Revenue Services. During the period 2000 to 2005 he was manager of a special compliance unit in the Revenue Service that was specifically established to cooperate with the SAPS focussing on organised crime.

44. No attack is made on behalf of the accused on the credibility of the state witnesses except for Agliotti and Muller. No attack is made on behalf of the state on the credibility of the witnesses called by the accused. Needless to say the state challenges the credibility of the accused's evidence. These issues will be determined in due course.

45. Agliotti and the accused are the central role players in the factual exposition that will follow. From observation whilst giving evidence, it appears the Agliotti is a large man of imposing physical appearance. He is relatively well spoken. He always appeared extremely well dressed in court. He did not appear to lack confidence, it emerged from his evidence that when travelling he stayed at the best hotels, supported up market clothing stores, travelled overseas whilst flying first or business class and enjoyed a luxurious life style. He deliberately gave the impression that he liked the better things in life. Flint testified that when he met Agliotti (this must have been after 1993), Agliotti was a different person to the one now accused of serious crimes. It appears that Agliotti did not portray at that time the signs of affluence which he sought to portray in the witness box. The accused was educated in Johannesburg where he matriculated. He was awarded a Bachelor of Arts degree by the University of the North. He qualified as a teacher. He thereafter, in the early 1970's, taught at a number of high schools in South Africa.   At an early age the accused became involved in politics. He became the secretary of what was  then  called the South African  Student's Organisation.  He was detained without trial on two occasions. Ultimately the accused went into exile. Whilst in exile the accused taught at the Solomon Mahlangu Freedom College in Tanzania. The accused was a member of the African National Congress and was elected as the head of the African National Congress's Youth League. At a later stage he was elected to the National Executive Committee of the African  National  Congress. Whilst teaching in Tanzania he was called to Lusaka by the then president of the African National Congress, Mr Oliver Tambo and was sent for further military training in Moscow. He returned to South Africa in approximately 1991. He was put in charge of the repatriation programme of the African National Congress. In 1994 he became a backbencher in the first democratic parliament in South Africa. In the first year of the parliament he was appointed as the South African ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva. After
approximately 4 years he was appointed as the director general of the department of foreign affairs, in 2000 he was appointed as the national commissioner of SAPS.

49. In the early 1990's Agliotti met the accused at the head office of the African National Congress. At that time the accused was in charge of social welfare and development within the African National Congress. Agliotti was considering the importation into and the sale in South Africa of second hand clothing. Agliotti was considering giving a percentage of the profits to cover the relocation costs of members of the African National Congress returning to South Africa. Agliotti and the accused had approximately twelve meetings. Nothing came of this and eventually Agliotti and the accused went their own ways. During this time Agliotti met the accused's secretary, Ms Ntombi Sylvia Matshoba ("Matshoba").

50. Rautenbach lived in South Africa from 1990 to 1999. He was involved in several businesses. The first business was a trucking business known as SA Botswana Hauliers. In approximately 1992 he became involved in the importation of Volvo trucks from Botswana into South Africa. In 1993 he became involved in a business which acquired the Hyundai motor vehicle franchise. In 1999 he became aware that an investigation was being conducted into the Hyundai business. During November 1999 certain of the business premises in Germiston were raided by the SAPS. Shortly thereafter, in late November 1999, Rautenbach fearing arrest left South Africa for Zimbabwe.

52. In 1999 Muller commenced trading with Mr Andrew Ross ("Ross") as event managers. They originally did so through a close corporation known as Monster Marketing CC trading as Maverick. After a period of time they required a black economic empowerment partner. Agliotti introduced them to Mr John Stratton ("Stratton") and Mr Hennie Buitendag ("Buitendag"). Stratton was a director of JCI and a confidante of Kebble. Buitendag was the chief financial officer of JCI. In her evidence in chief Muller stated that this was in 2004 and 2005. In re-examination she stated that the negotiations commenced in the beginning of 2003 and then moved into 2004. Flint, who was intimately involved in the business of Maverick, testified that Agliotti had overheard him speak about the need to acquire a black economic empowerment partner and had suggested that they raise the issue with JCI. He testified that this occurred towards the latter half of 2003. After apparently long negotiations with JCI an agreement was arrived at pursuant to which Maverick Masupatsela (Pty) Ltd acquired 30 % of the business conducted by Monster Marketing CC trading as Maverick. The new entity traded under the name of Maverick Masupatsela (Pty) Ltd and commenced trading as such in 2005. After the death of Kebble in September 2005 the entire transaction collapsed and the deal was reversed.

The business was thereafter carried on under the name of Maverick Experience Exhilarator (Pty) Ltd. In due course another black economic empowerment partner, in the form of African Renaissance Holdings Ltd, invested in the company. Kogl is a director thereof. Muller is the chief executive officer of the company; Ross is the creative director and Flint the financial director. The companies and close corporation referred to in this paragraph will for ease of reference be referred to herein as Maverick.

55. Notwithstanding having the use of a desk at Maverick's premises, Agliotti played no role in the business affairs of Maverick. According to Muller, Agliotti had no place, other than coffee shops, from whence he could conduct his own business. Muller provided him with the use of the desk. He would be present at Maverick's in the morning for a time, except for Wednesday mornings, when he played golf. Thereafter he went about his business.

Have you ever tasked any private intelligence and investigations companies to investigate any South African government officials? If so, please provide the details."
Ramsay replied to this letter on 3 July 2000.

"I refer to our meeting at your offices on the morning of Monday 19 June 2000.
Following thereon i have had further discussions with Billy Rautenbach who has requested me to convey to you his assurances of his bona fides and his desire to find a mutually acceptable solution in respect of all outstanding matters.
At our aforementioned meeting I undertook on Billy Rautenbach's behalf to respond in writing to the 4 questions set out in your fax to me of 12 June 2000 and which I now do hereunder seriatim: 1.      The purpose of incorporating Hewa Bora Limited ('HBL') was for it to be used as a vehicle to participate in a profit sharing agreement relative to a mining operation in the DRC ('the agreement'). The shares in HBL are bearer and accordingly whoever presently holds these would be the effective beneficial owner.
It is felt that it would be more appropriate for further details including details of all payments made pursuant to the agreement to be furnished at the Maputo meeting referred to hereunder and Billy Rautenbach undertakes to do this.

This question refers specifically to members of foreign governments. He is unaware of any bank accounts, properties or any other financial instruments being used by such members for the purpose stated and is of the view that in the light of exchange control restrictions and the volatility of the Rand currency South Africa is an unlikely venue for such activities.
He did have contact with officers of the South African Intelligence Services during December 1999. As I advised you at our meeting of Monday 19 June 2000 he met with Andries and Raymond in Maputo and his father met with these same gentlemen in Pretoria earlier this year.
Yes. A private investigative company/ies was/were requested to investigate Mr Nick Rowell (attached to the Investigating Directorate) and a Mr Badenhorst of the Receiver of Revenue's department. There may have been others who were investigated but this information is peculiarly within the knowledge of Mr Doppies Kotze who was employed in the group's security department.

When I met with you at your offices on Monday 19 June 2000 it was arranged that subject to the issues of bona fides being satisfactorily addressed a meeting would be held in Maputo which Billy Rautenbach would attend and to which meeting you would despatch mandated representatives to attend. You will recall that we provisionally set Thursday 13 July 2000 and Friday 14 July 2000 as the dates for such meeting.

I would now like to suggest that if convenient and subject to the availability of flights from Johannesburg on the morning of Tuesday 11 July 2000 the Maputo meeting be held on Tuesday 11 July 2000. If this is not suitable we can keep to the date of Thursday 13 July 2000. While it would be preferable to complete the discussions in one day they can if necessary be extended for a further day.

I confirm that at this meeting we will in addition to debriefing from your side also address the cessation of investigations and the matter of an acceptable resolution in respect of outstanding matters and that the representatives who will be sent by you will also be fully mandated for such purposes.

I have made plans to be available in Johannesburg from the morning of Tuesday 11 July 2000. At the Maputo meeting Billy Rautenbach will furnish any further information you may require relative to your fax to me of 12 June 2000 and any other relevant information. You already have his assurances of his good faith and willingness to cooperate.
I would hope, as we discussed at our meeting on Monday 19 June 2000, that at the Maputo meeting we will be able to reach an overall arrangement including the cessation of the investigations and a solution in respect of all outstanding matters.
While I have assured Billy Rautenbach of your good faith I must however ask you to kindly confirm to me in your response hereto that no attempt will be made on the part of the South African authorities to extradite Billy from Mozambique, hinder his arrival and departure therefrom or to in any way either directly or indirectly interfere with his liberty when he visits Mozambique for the Maputo meeting.
I would appreciate hearing from you urgently so that final arrangements can be made for the Maputo meeting."

As is apparent from this letter Ramsay had a meeting with Ngcuka on 19 June 2000 at which meeting it was agreed that a meeting would be held with Ngcuka's representatives and Rautenbach in Maputo in July 2000. The meeting was duly held. Ngcuka was represented at the meeting by Mr P Richer ("Richer"), who introduced himself as working for Ngcuka, and Mr J Maqetuka ("Maqetuka") who was a deputy director of the NIA at that time. According to Leask, in 2000 Richer was in fact one of the Deputy Directors General of the National Intelligence Agency. In view hereof it is perhaps not surprising that not much was discussed in regard to what Rautenbach described as the Hyundai case. What was discussed was mainly intelligence issues relevant to issues outside South Africa's borders. A subsequent meeting was held at the request of the South Africans with some officials from the DRC. Thereafter Rautenbach received a letter from Richer advising to the effect that all negotiations or communications were terminated.

60. It appears from the evidence that from approximately the time of African Hope the relationship between the accused and Agliotti developed. The nature of the relationship and its development are in dispute and will be referred to later.

61. The Kya Sands drug bust occurred on 3 January 2002. Agliotti testified that he was approached by a Chinese lady known as Madam Chen to assist in the delivery of 2 twenty foot containers to Kya Sands for, what he regarded, as a ridiculous sum of money. Agliotti informed Stemmet hereof and instructed him to arrange for a controlled delivery at Kya Sands at Bryanston. The operation conducted by the SAPS was successful.

62. In cross examination Agliotti accepted that he phoned the accused and advised the accused as well of his suspicions prior to the police operation. It was also put to Agliotti that he informed Mr Morne Nel of his suspicions as well prior to the police operation. Agliotti was less emphatic in his acceptance of this proposition. The issue was not taken further.

63. Nel testified that Stemmet received a reward of R500000 from the SAPS for the information supplied by him. He Nel testified that on 3 January 2002 he was informed by Stemmet that he had received a request to provide an armed escort and to transport expensive tiles that had been imported from China from City Deep to Kya Sands for a remuneration of R70000. Nel met Stemmet and an operation was planned. This operation resulted in the arrest of 7 people and the confiscation of R1,2m worth of Mandrax tablets. After the arrests the investigation of the incident was handed to the Organised Crime section of the SAPS. Nel testified that at the time of the arrests and the confiscation of the drugs he was unaware of any roie played by Agliotti in the furnishing of information.

64. According to Agliotti he telephoned the accused from the airport after the police operation and before leaving for overseas. He asked the accused if he was happy with the operation. According to Agliotti the accused was ecstatic. Agliotti phoned the accused again from Italy and asked if there was any reward payable to him. It is emphasised that this occurred in January 2002 and it indicates the state of the relationship between the accused and Agliotti at that stage.

66. Nel testified further that at a later stage he was approached by Stemmet. Stemmet informed him that Agliotti had been helpful in the process of acquiring information in respect of the Kya Sands operation and that he wished to give Agliotti R100000 of the reward that he had received. This was subsequently done in his presence in Sandton. According to Nel there was a relationship between the accused and Stemmet.

78. At the insistence of Kebbie, Agliotti invited the accused to attend 5 to 6 dinners with amongst others Kebbie and Stratton. Agliotti would meet the accused en route to the dinner and then follow him to the venue. Mr Clinton Nassif ("Nassif") attended one such dinner.

79. Agliotti had met Nassif. He was introduced to Agliotti as being involved in the security industry and as having good contacts and in particular within the South African Revenue Services. Kebble was dissatisfied with the performance of Stemmet as head of security. Agliotti introduced Nassif to the Kebbles as somebody well connected, in particular well connected to the revenue services, and connected to the accused as well. Nassif then replaced Stemmet as head of the Kebbles security.

80. In August 2003 Mphego telephoned Agliotti and informed him that he needed to see him urgently. Agliotti saw Mphego on 28 August 2003. Unbeknown to Agliotti the interview was videoed. The meeting was mentioned during Agliotti's evidence in chief. The video was introduced in the cross examination of Agliotti, It was provisionally admitted into evidence. The video is exhibit 2A and the transcript thereof is exhibit 2B. The accused saw the video 2 to 3 weeks after Mphego had recorded it.

81. According to the transcript:

86. Sanders testified as to a meeting which he attended together with Nassif and Mr Tamo Vink ("Vink"). Vink was an advisor of Nassif. At the meeting Nassif    informed Sanders that he had just secured a contract with JCi to set up an investigations company with surveillance teams and that the investigations company would be paid a monthly retainer. Sanders agreed to join Nassif in this endeavour. Central National Security Group (Pty) Ltd ("CNSG") was the vehicle in which the aforesaid business was conducted. It was formed in 2004. Sanders was the operational director.  Nassif informed Sanders that he had appointed Matshoba as a director of CNSG. Nassif stated that she had a close relationship with the accused.    Sanders understood that Matshoba  had been the accused's secretary and that she had strong political and business contacts.

88. According to Agliotti he set up a meeting with Nassif and the accused at Melrose Arch as Nassif wanted to meet the accused. Agliotti was not certain as to who attended the meeting in addition to himself, Nassif and the accused. Sanders could have been present but Agliotti was not certain. At the meeting Agliotti asked the accused if he could afford Nassif the same opportunity of working with SAPS as had been afforded to Stemmet and Palto.

93. Yet a further meeting was held at the Meat Company in Melrose Arch. This meeting was attended by Nassif, Sanders, Matshoba, Agliotti and the accused. It was also attended by Mr Eyhab Jumean ("Jumean"). Jumean is a Jordanian citizen and apparently is a wealthy banker. He married an international model who is a South African. Agliotti asked the accused to attend this meeting. According to Agliotti, at the commencement of the meeting, he explained to the accused very briefly the purpose of the meeting and thanked him for coming to the meeting. The meeting took place at request of Nassif in regard to an investigation they were busy with. The investigation related to Jumean and his wife, it was alleged that Jumean was being blackmailed by a person who was named and who was a police reservist. According to Agliotti the amount involved in the blackmail was ￡500000. The purpose of the meeting was to inform the accused of the blackmail and the fact that it was being perpetrated by a police reservist and to have the alleged perpetrator's reservist status revoked. According to Sanders this subsequently did happen. At this meeting the accused stated that he did not like the fact that CNSG empfoyed Mr Andre Burger ("Burger") and Mr Henri Beukes ("Beukes"). He stated that if they wanted a working relationship with him must dismiss the two men. They were dismissed.

94. The accused's version as to who called this meeting differs from that set out above. According to the accused Nassif telephoned him directly to arrange this meeting. The purpose of the meeting was that Nassif wanted to get recognition for the rescue of a child that had been kidnapped. This was the first issue discussed at the meeting. Thereafter discussion took place in respect of the alleged blackmail of Jumean. After the meeting the accused made enquiries in regard to the reservist. He ascertained that the reservist was facing a large number of charges arising out of his activities as a bouncer. He informed the Provincial Commissioner of Gauteng of this and the alleged blackmail. The matter was thereupon dealt with.

102.   It was put to Rautenbach in evidence in chief that it appeared from Agliotti's passport that he had travelled to the DRC on 22 April 2005. He was asked if the payment could have occurred on that date. He responded in the affirmative. He was then told that there was a subsequent entry in Agliotti's passport which indicated that he had been in Lubumbashi on 6 January 2006. He was asked if the payment could have occurred on that date. He responded that it could not have. Rautenbach added that he and Tidmarsh had had a commercial disagreement in about August 2005. This led to Tidmarsh applying from the British Virgin Islands for, and obtaining on 6 January 2006, an order for the liquidation of their company. Since the disagreement he and Tidmarsh were not on talking terms. It should be added that Agliotti was not certain when he received the payment of $100000. He stated in re-examination that he was not sure when it occurred but that he recalled that it occurred on his last visit to Rautenbach in Lubumbashi. This occurred in 2006.

103,   According to Agliotti he had intended giving the accused $40000 of the $100000 that he had in fact received. He testified that he in fact had only given him a total of $30000 on three separate occasions.

104.   In cross examination Rautenbach was referred to an e-mail which had been attached to an affidavit deposed to by him. He had not been referred thereto during his evidence in chief. Rautenbach testified that Ramsay and Tidmarsh were debating as to how to advance his issues after the meeting with the accused had been held. The e-mail was sent by Tidmarsh to Rautenbach. He thought that he had received the e-mail a couple of weeks after the meeting with the accused.   It is  apparent that Tidmarsh  is commenting on the contents of a memorandum and suggesting amendments thereto.

Thanks for bouncing that on. I have the following comments/suggestions.

2) In the second paragraph, James says that "it became evident that there was a real interest on the part of the South African authorities (including the National Intelligence Agency) with regard to the contacts/business activities of Mr. Billy Rautenbach in the DRC...". I would suggest as follows:

- / suggested to Jackie that the Ngcuka was interested not only ion the DRC, but in Zim. (This plays on his suggestions that the Brits were behind all this). If he does have that impression, can James say that Ngcuka was interest also in the Zims? (The letter of 12 June does refer to "foreign governments" - in the plural ~~ and not just to a "foreign governments"). Was Bob ever mentioned, for example?

you at that meeting? Did Richer or "Jeff" explain why they were interested in such matters?

10) Anything further after the fax? Did James contact Richer, or Ngcuka for that matter, to obtain an explanation for the abrupt message?
My final suggestion is that the memo be turned into an "affidavit" ~~ and that it be signed by James as a more formal document. (Annexes should be numbered, or rather lettered).
Best regards,

107. About 3 weeks later, at approximately 21h50 on a Sunday night, Shlugman received a telephone call from Agliotti. He stated that there was a problem at West Ferry and that he cannot get hold of Jackie Seiebi as his cellular phone was on voice mail. Shlugman referred Agliotti to the Sandton SAPS.

108. On 26 September 2005 Kebble was killed. It emerged that Agliotti is charged with the murder of Kebble. He testified that he had been at the scene where Kebble had been shot. The trial is pending.

109. It was put to Agliotti in cross examination that:
109.1   Kebble was in fact not murdered but that his
shooting   and  death   constituted   an   assisted
suicide.

109.8 Kebble had problems with Miidenhall hence his shooting. None of the people involved in the Miidenhall shooting were prosecuted.

110. Agliotti agreed with all that was put to him. It is not apparent how Agliotti would have personal knowledge of much that was put to him. No other witness gave evidence in this regard.

111. Leask testified in cross examination that the DSO was investigating the Kebble killing and offences relating to the Kebbles. He added that on his case Agliotti and Stratton were the brains behind the syndicate. According to Leask, Agliotti and Stratton will stand trial in respect of the Miidenhall shooting.

was shot the next night. During November 2005 Roeland reported on the outcome of her investigation to her superiors and she accompanied them to the accused where a presentation was done, in addition to the accused Commissioners Schutte, Williams and de Beer and Director Ras were present. After the presentation a discussion ensued about the possibility that Kebble had had a third cellular phone that had been stolen at scene of the shooting. In this regard the name of one Erasmus, a police reservist, who arrived at the scene of the shooting, was mentioned. According to Roeland after the name Erasmus was mentioned, the accused made a call on his cellular phone. She heard the accused say 

113.   In approximately October to December 2005 the accused called Agliotti and arranged to see him at Maverick's offices. When the accused arrived, so Agliotti testified, the accused had a thick document with him which was opened on a particular p and there were two lines underlined on the p. Agliotti read the two lines. According to him the content of what he had read was to the effect that Jurgen Kogl reports that the Kebbles are paying the accused. The accused asked if Agliotti knew the person mentioned. Agliotti did not know who Kogl was. He undertook to attempt to ascertain who he was. The accused informed Agliotti that the document was an intelligence report and that it went to the President.

116.   Leask testified that he was informed of a report to which Agliotti referred to as the NIA report. Leask testified that his understanding was that it was a report by the National Intelligence Agency. In one of the report backs to Pikoli and his  executive  committee,   Pikoli  undertook to   make enquiries. In a subsequent meeting Pikoli informed Leask that the correct name for the report is a National Intelligence Estimate ("NiE") which is a document in the custody   of   the   National   Intelligence   Coordinating Committee ("NICOC"). He consulted with Gilder who was the then retired coordinator of that committee. Leask established the existence of such a report.

118. In his evidence Gilder confirmed that he was coordinator for intelligence from March 2005 to October 2007. The post is created in the National Strategic Intelligence Act and he was appointed to his post by the President of the country. One of Gilder's responsibilities was to chair NICOC. NICOC produced a range of intelligence assessments for government. Its main product was an annual national intelligence estimate. This estimate is referred to as the NIE. The NIE is drawn from the intelligence received from the 4 statutory intelligence services of the government as well as from open sources. It is prepared normally towards the end of a calendar year and is normally presented to the President and cabinet either at the end of the year or early the next year.

119. The preparation process of the NIE commences during the middle of the year. At some stage in its preparation the draft NIE would be presented to a task team consisting of the NICOC staff as well as representatives of the 4 statutory intelligence services and it would then go through various stages of drafting and redrafting. The final NIE report would have the same appearance as the draft report.

120. Gilder testified that he was visited by Pikoli. Pikoli referred to a draft NIE in which there had been a reference to the accused. Gilder made a copy of the relevant draft NIE available to Pikoli.

121  According to Gilder, prior to a NICOC meeting to consider a draft NIE, the draft would be distributed 3 to 4 days before the meeting, in hard copy form to the participants of the meeting. The reference to the accused was not taken up in the final NIE. A NICOC meeting was held in approximately October 2005. At the meeting it was agreed that the passage referring to the accused be removed from the draft NIE. Gilder testified that Lalla was present at the meeting. In cross examination, Gilder testified that the accused would not have been a recipient of the draft NIE. It was also agreed at the meeting that a letter of apology be written to the accused for the inclusion of his name in that context in the particular draft. Gilder testified that as far as he could remember such a letter of apology was in fact written to the accused.

The following appears at the foot of p 6 of the NIE, p2 of exhibit G:

The following appears on the top of p 7 of the NIE, p 3 of exhibit G"
"Jackie Selebi. He claims that the National Commissioner received large sums of money from the Kebbles emanating from questionable business deals concluded on his behalf.

As you have suggested, I have met with operatives from NIA and agreed that we should pull our resources together. On comparing our note thus far-we have uncovered that:
A certain Jurgen KOGL is coordinating efforts to discredit the Head of state. According to the source, KOGL (profile unavailable) is looking for assistance to gather intelligence to "sink MBEKI". In his attempt,  he is reportedly "hatching" a conspiracy   to   smear   individuals   he perceives to be close to President Thabo MBEKI.   Intelligence   gleaned  thus   far reveals that he  has  already targeted Bulelani NGCUKA..."
The paragraph continues as follows on p 2 thereof:

"...for allegedly fathering a child to an under-aged mother. Intelligence had also gathered, that information peddlers working at the behest of the Kebbles, have deliberately planted information, designed to embarrass the NDPP.
KOGL is also reported to be have targeted Jackie SELEBI (National Commissioner of SAPS), with a corruption or bribery smear. According to a well placed source, his aim is to get whatever fabrication through to the media. KOGL is reported to be closely linked to one Paul O Sullivan (former security chief of ACSA- full profile not available). Further investigation is recommended In another arena, Emile VAN DER MERWE (self styled private investigator) is reported to be used by personnel of the Scorpions' GAUTENG office to peddle information to the media about suspects under their investigations.    Surveillance   has   been activated to monitor a suspect address in GRANT    Avenue-NORWOOD.     Further investigation is recommended.

improper motives"

128.   Reverting to the Khampepe commission, Mrwebi testified that the establishment of the commission caused a great deal of panic within the DSO and especially amongst the senior members of the DSO. The commission was to receive submissions from the national management of the DSO and from two regions within the DSO, namely Kwa Zulu Natal and Gauteng. McCarthy, who was at that time the head of the DSO, informed Mrwebi that his regional submission must be in line with the DSO's national submission. He required Mrwebi to submit a copy of the Kwa Zulu Natal submission to him to enable him to verify that it was in line with the national submission. In addition McCarthy instructed Mrwebi to ensure the arrest of as many policemen as possible so as to make as big an impact as possible before the national management of the DSO makes their submissions to the commission.

131. As far as Plitt is concerned, Leask testified that she initially was an investigator attached to the investigative directorate of the organized crime unit in the Western Cape and formed part of the team that dealt with urban terrorism. She was subsequently appointed as an investigator in the DSO. She is a South African citizen currently living in the USA with her husband. Plitt married an American policeman and she is living with him in the USA.

132. It was put to Pikoli in cross examination that towards the end of 2005, maybe the beginning of 2006, the accused called him to his office and raised with him the concern that Ngcuka had tried to bribe Rautenbach, Pikoli's wife had received a substantial donation from the Kebbles and the DSO's involvement with foreign intelligence agencies.

Pikoli denied that this was raised with him by the accused. The Rautenbach issue, Pikoli stated was raised by the accused in the context of the accused asking him why the NPA were not dropping charges against Rautenbach as he was in possession of a letter which could embarrass Ngcuka. This was raised by the accused much earlier in the year.

134. It was put to Pikoli that when he received the letter of 24 January 2006 from Advocate de Beer with its attachment, he was only aware of two complaints against the accused as mentioned in the annexure. First that Nassif paid the accused R50000 every month for work or favours done. Second that the accused and the Kebbles were involved in fraud. It was put to Pikoli that these complaints were both untrue. Pikoli accepted this and added that he never put these allegations to the accused either. It was further put to Pikoli that once he had Stemmet's (around March 2006) and Nassifs affidavit (November 2006) he knew that the allegations made against the accused in the annexure to the letter were untrue. Pikoli responded by saying that it
was an ongoing investigation. Some allegations would be thrown out and others would be proven true.

142. de Beer testified that on Saturday 15 July 2006 she was at the Vaal dam with her family. Whilst there she received a telephone call in the morning from a journalist. The journalist informed her that she had certain documents in her possession and that she wanted to interview the accused in connection therewith, de Beer contacted the accused. The upshot to this was that it was agreed that the journalist would make the documents available to the accused, where after an interview between the journalist and the accused would take place. The documents were obtained and delivered to the accused and de Beer attended the interview by the journalist, who was accompanied by a colleague, and the accused. A number of high ranking police officers attended the interview as well. Included amongst there number was Deputy National Commissioner Pruis ("Pruis"). The following day a front p lead article appeared in the Sunday Independent newspaper, de Beer testified that she checked the article for accuracy and found it to be an accurate reflection of the discussion that had taken place. She identified exhibit H8 as the newspaper article in question.

He makes no mention to Selebi in his affidavits, but does mention that Agliotti was allegedly connected to one of the accused. It is, however, the covering letter that contains the

is also suggested in the first bundle of documents that Selebi owned a close corporation called Universal Technical Enterprises in Midrand, but that he had other police fronting as the 'real' owners".

148. In cross examination it was put to Agliotti that he did have discussions with the accused in eariy 2006 after the so-called media campaign had started. The discussions revolved around the issue as to who was behind the media campaign. After some time Agliotti and the accused believed that O'Sullivan and the DSO were behind the media campaign. It was further put to Agliotti that the accused admitted giving a document to Agliotti. As far as the accused could recall it was an e-mail from which there was a clear indication that O'Sullivan and the DSO was behind the media campaign. The document which was given to Agliotti was part of the so called O'Sullivan dossier and had been given to the accused by the press. The intention of the accused in providing the documentation to Agliotti, so it was put, was to resist the improper and
unlawful smear campaign against the accused and Agliotti in the media which was based on untrue facts. This issue will be reverted to later.

152. Agliotti testified that he discussed the report with Nassif as he and Nassif had assisted Paparas in clearing a container for which he was arrested.

154.   Exhibit A1 reads as follows:
"The above detailed operation is a new UK operation that
focuses on the drug trafficking activities of:
Norbert Glenn AGLIOTTI, DOB 22/11/1956 who is believed
to be a South African National.
Background.

AGLIOTTI is associated with a South African business, Max bit which is linked to an address; Unit 13 Gallager Place North, Richards Drive, Midrand, South Africa. AGLIOTTI is also associated with the following contact points:

AGLIOTTI also controls secure lock up in a warehouse outside Johannesburg. (Comment: It is not clear from the intelligence whether the premises identified above is the warehouse but it is strongly suspected that it is.)
The cocaine is transported by air from Venezuela to Angola, and then transported by road to South Africa.

When the cocaine is removed from the lock up (near Johannesburg) for onward transportation, a Customs seal is placed on the container. The containers are shipped from Cape Town.
The organisation intends to send three 'dirty' containers from South Africa to the UK. Prior to this, three 'clean' containers will be despatched to act as cover, should one be called for examination.
A dummy run took place on 18 June 2004 using the Johannesburg - Cape Town - Tilbury, UK route.
Additional information.
AGLIOTTI is suspected of having close links within South African who assist facilitation with his drug trafficking enterprises.
AGLIOTTI is also associated with a UK based male known as 'Baldy John'.

'Baldy John' is involved with the shipping of AGLIOTTI's cocaine from South Africa to the UK.
'Baldy John' is a white male, 32 years old with a midlands accent and is linked with a clothes shop in Buckhurst Hill, London.
'Baldy John' is associated with UK mobile telephone number +447876032558.
'Baldy John's' father was also involved with drug trafficking.
AGLIOTTI has considerable business contacts within the UK. These contacts will be used to assist with moving forthcoming proceeds from the UK to Switzerland.
AGLIOTTI visited the UK in early July possibly around 3 or 4 July 2004. He is believed to have travelled with his daughter and stayed at No1 Aldwych, London which is an exclusive hotel in Central London.
AGLIOTTI is also associated with a UK national called Billy Ambrose.
Current intelligence.
Most recent intelligence indicates that AGLIOTTI and a male identified as CLINTON NASSIF, DOB 28/10/1968, travelled together to London on 23 July 2004 on South Africa flight number SA234.
They have a booking to return to Johannesburg, 25 July 2004 on flight SA235.
NASSIF is associated with the following South African numbers:
0027828916327 (Mobile) 6803073
Whilst in London, AGLIOTTI and NASSIF are scheduled to stay One Aldwych, London which is an exclusive hotel in the centre of London used previously by AGLIOTTI.
Assistance sought
The UK have asked whether it would be possible to:

158. Hankel identified exhibit A1 p1-3. The document was submitted to his office on 3 August 2004 and dealt with by him on 4 August 2004. The document which he described as a report emanated from the drug liaison officer of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, which is a UK law enforcement body, authorised to communicate intelligence matters to Henkel's office. Hankel was aware that Agliotti, who is identified in Exhibit A1, had previously been drawn to SAPS attention as part of an operation called Operation Chaser. The report was booked out for attention by the Special Operations Intelligence Centre. Preliminary feedback was provided to the drug liaison officer on 18 August 2004. The telephone records of the telephone numbers referred to in exhibit A1 were subpoenaed and further feedback was provided with specific communication records of foreign numbers that were dialled by Agliotti. Hankei was requested to make the data available to the prosecuting authority. This information would have been contained in the Operation Chaser file. He then discovered that the file relating to Operation Chaser had been booked out of his offices by a Captain M Thema ("Thema") on 21 April 2006. It emerged from Hankel's evidence that he summoned Thema and Director Lakalakala ("Lakalakala"), who was Thema's commander at the time, in about February 2009, and demanded the return of the file. They were in no position to explain what they had done with the file. Neither Lakalakala nor Thema suggested that the file had been returned. On the contrary it emerged from Hankel's evidence that a few weeks after the meeting with them, they sent Hankei a file container containing a lot of scraps of paper. In cross examination Hankei added that had the file been returned it would have been indexed back into his environment and he would have expected Thema to have obtained a receipt for the return of so important a file. In any event he searched his archives and the file is not to be found.

159. Hankel endeavoured to obtain the information that had been provided in response to exhibit A1. Some information was obtained from the SAPS computers other information was obtained from MTN. The information obtained from MTN Is contained in Exhibit D 1 to 57 and reflects a record of telephone calls from 1 July 2004 to 20 August 2004 made to and from cellular telephone number 0832503333 which was identified as Agiiotti's cellular phone. It is noteworthy that in this period there were 16 calls made by the accused to Agliotti and 41 calls made by Agliotti to the accused.

160. Exhibits A2 and A3 are addressed to Nelson. He testified that he did not recognise either report nor did he deal therewith. Exhibits A2 and A3 are both not signed by the writer thereof and are dated 4 October 2004 and 23 December 2004 respectively. They both bear a SAPS date stamp of 21 February 2007. Nelson testified that he did not deal with either A2 or A3. He further stated in cross examination in regard to exhibit A1, that once the information had been obtained and a report compiled, the original of exhibit A1 would be returned to Hankel. The original request for assistance would not be retained in the operational file.

164. In cross examination the accused firstly denied that the Operation Chaser file was missing. He labelled Hankel as a liar for stating that it was missing. He added that he would prevail on his counsel to call Thema or Lekalakaia to testify. They would apparently say that the file was returned to Hankel's secretary. The accused further accepted that exhibit A1 was booked out to Operation Chaser and worked on by at least Thema. It then emerged that the accused had consulted with Thema after Hankel had testified, When asked how he could consult with a state witness, the accused responded that he was unaware that Thema was a state witness. His attention was then drawn to portion of the cross examination of Hankel from which it is manifest that Thema is a state witness. Finally in this regard it should be pointed out that neither Thema nor Lekalakaia were called to testify on behalf of the accused.

165. In September 2006 a search and seizure operation was carried out by the DSO at Agiiotti's home and Maverick's premises.

166. According to Leask, Nassif and Agliotti were two of the people being specifically investigated in regard to the Kebble shooting, in this process an undetected incident was established in regard to a fraud in which Nassif was implicated. The DSO could not trace a police docket. They reconstructed a docket and on 26 October 2006 Nassif was arrested on a charge of fraud. Adv B Roux SC ("Roux") was Nassifs counsel. He approached the DSO and indicated that Nassif wished to provide certain information. Roux provided a draft affidavit. Leask took the affidavit to the prosecutors and the National Director of Public Prosecutions and his executive committee as Nassif indicated that he wanted the benefits of s 204 of the CPA and wished to stipulate further conditions which were set out in the draft affidavit.

"Comms

Paper/Andries/Then Put Line

Payments.

Reports 
1. H.M.S.

circumstances surrounding the production of the Browse Mole document, its leakage, the intentions of the compilers and any other related matters. Pikoli added that all present at the meeting should cooperate fully with the proposed investigation. Mrwebi added that in time he became aware that a task team of the National Security Council had been set up to investigate the matter.

The investigating team started briefing the national deputies as well. Pikoli identified the deputies as McCarthy, Ramaite, Hofmeyer and Pillay.

198. A discussion took place at the meeting as to the continued existence of the DSO. Suggestions were debated as to how the status quo with regard to the DSO could be maintained. These included:
�	"That we must go back to the so called 'Hollywood Style' to show the public that the DSO is still alive
�	
�	We identify business executives who are favourable to the DSO and try to influence them
�	That a possible legal challenge may be considered in view  of the  recommendations  of the  Khampepe Commission
�	That all the above must happen before the ANC National Conference in December 200T

79
(f) With regard to the four problematic cases referred to above, I can, from an insider perspective, give the following background information:

�	It would be mentioned that that BG matter is very important for the DSO and that it actually meant life and death for the DSO.
�	That is even why the Regional Head of Gauteng, is himself designated as the prosecutor in the matter.

Further that is even why later the Investigating Director himself was further designated to also conduct the prosecution in the matter and that he would not be attending any management meetings and he will be full-time in the matter.

However, from further inquiries, it became clear to me why the BG matter was of such importance to the DSO.

As no details were given about why the four matters were regarded as problematic for the DSO and no reasons for a need for suggestions and decision thereon in the light of the ANC June

RESOLUTIONS OF THE MEETING
The meeting closed with the following resolutions, inter alia:

Policy conference and the upcoming ANC December National Conference were given as well we were only left to speculate. However, what was clear from discussions was the urgency of taking decisions in these four matters either way before the December ANC National conference.

Mrwebi indicated that he would investigate the information the task team had. He was then requested to be part of the investigation team and to assist with the investigation. After investigating the matter Mrwebi presented the task team with a report dispelling the allegations directed against his office.

203. Two to three weeks after submitting his report, according to Mrwebi it must have been towards the end of August 2007 or the beginning of September 2007, he was contacted again by the task team. They now wished to see him in connection with the meeting of the DSO which had occurred on 25 July 2007. He attended such a meeting. He did not have the contemporaneous notes which he had made at the meeting of 25 July 2007 with him at the meeting. After the meeting he consulted his notes and at the request of the task team prepared the affidavit which is annexure H9. He regarded the affidavit as top secret as he had been informed that the investigation was a top secret investigation. After he had deposed to the affidavit he handed it to a NIA officer in Durban with the request that it be handed over to the relevant members of the investigating team.

212. in December 2008 the findings of the Ginwala Enquiry were made public. The finding was that Pikoli was fit to hold the office of the national director of public prosecutions and his reinstatement to office was recommended. Notwithstanding this finding President Motlanthe determined to dismiss Pikoli from his office. Pikoli thereupon instituted review proceedings in the High Court. The review was to be heard shortly after Pikoli testified in this court.

213. In late December 2007 the review committee that had been established by Mpshe to determine whether the prosecution should proceed made its decision known. Although not expressly stated the decision must have been to proceed with the prosecution.

214. On 4 January 2008 Agliotti deposed to a further affidavit. This affidavit is exhibit A23. It came into existence in the following manner. Agliotti testified that during the period 2007/8 he was befriended by Mrs Volskenk, whom he described as a business colleague. She claimed to have, according to Agliotti, a business relationship with Mr Manzini who was the head of the NIA. Agliotti had previously discussed with Volskenk his complaints against the NPA. Volskenk suggested that Agliotti meet with the NIA in order that he gives them his grievances. Agliotti agreed provided he would meet with the highest person in the NIA.

215. Agliotti received a call on 4 January 2008 to attend a meeting at an office park in Rivonia. He did attend the meeting. Prior thereto he had partaken in a family luncheon. At the office park Agliotti was met by Volskenk and Mr Dennis Kekana. Agliotti was told he first needed to make a statement as to how he was treated and that thereafter the same evening he would meet with the NIA. A statement was duly produced. Agliotti dictated the contents thereof and Volskenk typed the statement. Kekana then took Agliotti and the statement in his motor vehicle to the Balalaika Hotel in Sandton. In the foyer of the hotel they were met by a NIA member who took them to a suite in the hotel. There Agliotti met Manzini and Fraser from the NIA and Mphego. Agliotti testified that he was surprised to see Mphego at the meeting as the meeting was supposed to be with NIA. Mphego summoned a police officer before whom Agliotti took the oath and signed the statement. The statement reflects that the oath was taken in Brixton. This is wrong.

216. Agliotti testified that at the time of making the affidavit he had been in jail, he was under house arrest, his life had been put on hold, he and his family had been exposed to an armed robbery and he had never been offered a deal such as Nassif and others had been offered by the DSO. He wanted somebody to hear his side of the story. Volskenk had intimated that this may be possible through the NIA. Accordingly Agliotti determined to give the NIA a version that they wanted to hear. He stated that he gave a version in the affidavit of Kebble's theory of what was going on with Ngcuka and McCarthy and what he thought was in the accused's and his interest as well as what he thought the NIA wanted to hear. The paragraphs of the affidavit were numbered and Agliotti was taken to the content of the affidavit from which it appeared that certain information had been given to him by the DSO and the NPA. Agliotti testified that the information had not expressly been given to him. ft was his interpretation of the facts.

Finally Agliotti stated in paragraph 12 the following:

"On numerous occasions, I requested an audience with Vusi Pikoii when I was told by Gerrie Nel that this would not be possible at all. My request was to speak to Pikoli on the basis that he had no right whatsoever to give 204 indemnities to Nassif, Smith, McGuirck and Schultz for the murder of Kebble as I had no part to play in this. I was told that this would NEVER happen, however, if I did a deal, I could have an audience with Leonard McCarthy - head of the DSO at which I stated that I had no desire whatsoever to speak to Mr. McCarthy. It is very clear to even a blind man that the DSO used people such as Paul 0' Sullivan, Tamo Vink, and various others to attempt to bring down Selebi in order to save the DSO from being incorporated back into the SAPS organisation. It is VERY clear that the DSO abused their office of power to achieve this goal."

223.   According to the transcript of the video recording:
223.1 The interview commenced with Agliotti referring to Nassif. A person, who had previously been with military intelligence, had been employed by Nassif. Nassif had dismissed him from his employ. According to Agliotti this person then went to the DSO and offered to give them information relating to Nassif. This person, known as Eugene, was, so Agliotti is recorded as having said, was recruited by O'Sullivan and is the casual source referred to an e-mail sent by O'Sullivan to Plitt. Nassif was arrested on a charge of fraud. On his release from prison after spending one night there Nassif told the DSO who had been involved in the killing of Kebbie.

224.   Leask testified that he was unaware of the meetings at the Balalaika Hotel and the Villa Via Hotel.

225.   During the course of Agliotti's cross examination counsel for the accused referred Agliotti to an article which counsel said had appeared in the City Press the previous Sunday. The article is exhibit A39. It should be emphasised that Agliotti had already testified in regard to the events of 4 January 2008 and 7 January 2008 when he was confronted with this article, in the first 2 paragraphs of the article it is alleged that the meeting at the Balalaika Hotel on 4 January 2008 was video recorded as well and that reporters from City Press had seen the video. It appears that neither counsel for the state nor the accused were aware of the existence of the video, if it indeed exists. If the video does in fact exist it is a matter of concern that the video was shown to reporters who then commented on the veracity of Agliotti. If the video does exist and was shown to the reporters it would appear that whoever caused the video to be shown to them, was attempting to influence proceedings in this court.

 "PART A:

PARTB

In the alternative to prayers 1 and 2 above the following relief will be seek:

The application was dismissed for want of urgency.

and paid cheques.

As to the second query the following is stated in the response:
"Compiled from bank statements and received in 8 amounts over the period from 05/12/2003 to 08/05/2004.

'JCI 			7,600,000 
JCI Group (Consolid)	12,000,000 

As to the third query the following is stated:

As will appear hereinafter the reality differs substantially from the response furnished by Agliotti

237. In regard to annexure U (Exhibit C3 p163) Friedman testified that the annexure represents the accused's monthly discretionary spend. This is achieved by disregarding debit orders on the accused's bank account and only having regard to cheque payments made from that account, cheques cashed from that account, cash withdrawals from that account and credit card expenditure. This annexure deals with the period March 2004 to December 2005. The content of the annexure is set out
hereunder:
Month	Cheque payments	Cheques cashed	Cash withdrawals	Credit cards expenditure	Aggregate total	
Mar-04	34 281.00	5 088.00	22 000.00	1 550.00	62 919.00	
Apr-04	34 187.23	0.00	5 000.00	941.35	40 128.58	
May-04	39 888.55	0.00	1 000.00	7 562.49	48 451.04	
Jun-04	27 033.84	13 000.00	10 000.00	1 841.78	51 875.62	
Jui-04	15 808.72	0.00	16 000.00	3 904.28	35 713.00	
Aug-04	29 265.39	^000.00	11 000.00	7 825.17	54 090.56	
Sep-04	24 767.45	2 160.00	10 800.00	2 504.32	40 231.77	
Oct-04	31 826.61	0.00	15 000.00	3 242.67	50 069.28	
Nov-04	9 377.90	0.00	3 000.00	3 186.95	15 564.85	
Dec-04	18 370.60	3 000.00	3 000.00	7 485.60	31 856.20	
Jan-05	0.00	0.00	0.00	465.35	465.35	
Feb-05	0.00	0.00	0.00	188.12	188.12	
Mar-05	19 397.50	0.00	0.00	876.15	20 273.65	
Apr-05	11 830.86	0.00	1 000.00	944.75	13 775.61	
May-05	15 585.91	0.00	16 300.00	10 462.98	42 348.89	
Jun-05	40 781.70	0.00	0.00	1 152.80	41 934.50	
Jul-05	22 406.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	22 406.00	
Aug-05	25 287.99	0.00	13 000.00	9 254.37	47 542.36	
Sep-05	20 381,66	0.00	5 500.00	1 069.37	26 951.03	
Oct-05	0.00	0.00	0,00	2 351.41	2 351.41	

Nov-05	3 246.73	0.00	0.00	1 123.21	4 369.94	
|   Dec-05	3 825.00	0.00	0.00	4 596.81	8 421.81	
Total	427 550.64	29 248.00	132 600.00	72 529.93	661 928.57	
Average	19 434.12	1 329.45	6 027.27	3 296.82	30 087.66	

238.   Friedman pointed out that:

238.6 The total expenditure from the accused's bank account for the period March 2004 to December 2004 amounted to R430899.90. It only amounted to R231028.67 for the period January to December 2005. According to Friedman and as is apparent from annexure l_1 (exhibit C5 p753) the pattern of reduced expenditure continued into 2006 and only started picking up round about July 2006.
239. Friedman testified that he had been referred to a draft affidavit by Agliotti in which he had indicated that certain cash payments had been made to the accused. As far as the draft affidavit is concerned Leask testified that he furnished Friedman a print out of a portion of Agliotti's draft affidavit that was being worked on containing only that which was relevant to Friedman. Friedman testified that reference was then had to the Spring Lights account and in particular to the cash cheques in that account in order to determine if there were any payments that had the characteristics in description or in amount which could be associated with the allegations made by Agliotti. Seven such cheques were identified. These cheques are set out in the schedule in exhibit C1 p33. Particulars of these cheques are as follows:

Cheque number	Counter foil note	Cheque date	Bank stamp date	Cheque Amount R	
0127	"CASH JSGA"	14 June 2004	14 June 2004	10 000.00	
0201	"CASH COP"	8 November 2004	8 November 2004	10 000.00	
0204	"CASH COP"	18 November 2004	18 November 2004	5 000.00	
0222	"CASH 200000"	13 December 2004	13 December 2004	200 000.00	
0226	"CASH COP"	20 December 2004	20 December 2004	100 000.00	
0271	"CASH GR Chief	12 Aprii 2005	13 April 2005	55 000.00	
0355	"CASH Chief	28 September 2005	28 September 2005	30 000.00	
Total				R410 000.00	

amount and the money was packed in a large envelope. He asked Muller to assist him in the packing of the money in the envelope. He handed the envelope to the accused in Maverick's boardroom. He  added that he had originally been under the impression that Flint had written the cheque, but after thinking about it and being presented with the cheque, he realised that the cheque had been made out and cashed by him. In regard to these two payments the accused was referred to exhibit A10 and A17 being the cheque and counterfoil in respect of the payment of R200000 and A11  and A18 being the cheque and counterfoil in respect of the payment of R120000, made up of the proceeds of the cash cheque of R1

248, Muller testified in chief that she thought this payment took place at the end of 2004. The reason for the money was that the accused was taking his family overseas on holiday.

255. Agliotti testified to making a payment to the accused for a specific reason. He testified that an amount of R30 000 was paid to the accused in cash at Europa Coffee Shop in Sandton for an Interpol dinner that the accused attended. Agliotti added that the accused had to attend an Interpol dinner in France where he was lobbying for votes to become president of Interpol. Ten to twelve people were to attend the dinner. Agliotti indicated that he was happy to sponsor the dinner. The estimated cost of the dinner was calculated and an amount of R30 000 was arrived at in respect of the cost of the dinner after a per head calculation. Agliotti thought that this had occurred in 2005.

Fubu is, if you have ever seen a match of, what is this, Basket ball, this American thing, basket ball, they put on these baggy huge pants and huge T-shirt, everything is huge. That is Fubu. My children do not put on Fubu. I do not know if I can put Fubu, I think everybody would think something has gone wrong, this case has made Jackie to lose his mind. There is no such thing".

261. One of the shops from which clothing purchases were made is Grays. Exhibit A22 p 62 dated 31 October 2004 is an invoice from Grays and reflects purchases by Agliotti of 2 Aigner jackets and an Aigner polo, Agliotti testified that he has not bought two jackets at the same time (as opposed to suits). He did not wear Aigner polo shirts. He testified that he was sure that he would have bought them for the accused.  Exhibit A22 p 6 dated 29 March 2005 reflects the purchase of an Aigner jacket and Hugo Boss knitwear. The Aigner jacket is reflected as size 58. Agliotti testified that he was certain that he bought the jacket for the accused. Agliotti testified that he purchased two Carnali ties. This is confirmed in exhibit A22 p 59 and p 69. One of the ties, he testified he presumed and expected was for the accused.

262.   Maharaj, the bookkeeper and payroll administrator of Surtee Esquire, testified as to the accused's and Agiiotti's purchases from stores in the group. In respect of both Agliotti  and  the  accused   he  referred to  a  Debtor Transaction List. The list sets out purchases and payments in respect of the purchases for each of them. The back up documents in  respect of each transaction was also identified by the witness. These documents are contained in exhibit E. It is apparent from the documentation that the accused is reflected to have purchased goods for the first time on 29 October 2004 in the amounts of R11200 and R1000. Thereafter there were purchases on 29 August 2005 and 29 September 2005 in the amounts of R2980 and R56430 respectively. It is noteworthy that the first payment on this account was only made on 16 October 2005 when a payment of R25000 was made. This payment was made by way of cash. Subsequent payments on the account in the amount of R5000 (4 payments) and one of R4000 were made by way of cheque over the period 6 March 2007 to 9 February 2008. The present outstanding balance on the account amounts to R24283. It is apparent from the documentation that Agliotti is reflected to have purchased goods for the first time on 29 June 2004. His account presently reflects an outstanding balance of R15182.20 the last payment having been made on 28 September 2006.

'Whether I subjectively disbelieve him is, however, not the test, I need not even reject the State case in order to acquit him. I am bound to acquit him if there exists a reasonable possibility that his evidence may be true. Such is the nature of the onus on the State.'
Referring to this passage Van der Spuy AJ said at 715G:
'In other words, even if the State case stood as a completely acceptable and unshaken edifice, a court must investigate the defence case with a view to discerning whether it is demonstrably false or inherently so improbable as to be rejected as false.'

267. As was held in S v Khumalo 1991 (4) SA 310 (A) at 327 G to H, in regard to an alibi, but equally applicable to any defence raised by an accused, the correct approach is to consider the alibi against the totality of the evidence and the courts impression of the witnesses. In considering the alibi or defence, the court must, as was confirmed in S v Jochems 1991 (1) SACR 208 (A) at 211C-F that the onus remains throughout this process on the State and that there is no onus of any nature on an accused to prove the truth of an alibi or it may be added of a defence raised by the accused. Where a court finds that an accused's version might reasonably be true, that is sufficient for the accused's acquittal.

274. It is evidence of this nature that emboldened the accused's counsel to submit, as they put it, without fear of contradiction, that Agliotti can be described as probably one of the most untruthful and unreliable witnesses ever to testify in this court. By its very nature this is a very broad submission and one that is impossible to evaluate. It will become apparent hereinafter that even restricting the submission to the present matter, Agiiotti's title, as awarded to him by the accused's counsel, is at least under severe threat or perhaps no longer his. Irrespective of this it is clear that Agiiotti's evidence must be treated with the greatest circumspection and can only be accepted if corroborated by other acceptable evidence.

275. Any assessment of the accused's credibility must commence by the striking difference in what had been put to Agliotti and the accused's own evidence as to the impression that the accused had of Agliotti. It was put to Agliotti that the accused regarded him as an international businessman and a businessman of standing. In cross examination the accused was asked what his understanding was of the business that Agliotti was involved in or conducting. The accused's response was that he could not say. He added that he always knew that Agliotti was a hustler trying to make ends meet. One day he was involved in export and import, the next day in mining and the next in sports promotion. By no stretch of the imagination can that which was put to Agliotti be reconciled with the accused's description of Agliotti as a hustler. This divergence typifies the accused's evidence. The accused throughout his evidence demonstrated a capacity to tailor his evidence to his best advantage. Often this resulted in his credibility being impugned.

286. The accused's wife was not called as a witness to attempt to explain her inexplicable conduct in shredding the till receipts. The only inference that can be drawn from these events and the failure to call the accused's wife is that the till receipts did not exist. The information set out in exhibit H6 did not emanate from till receipts but from the credit card statements ultimately produced by the accused. This conclusion further negates the accused's contention that he was personally involved in the compilation of exhibit H6.

289.   The accused then changed tack entirely in regard to his evidence in respect of exhibit H2.  From being the document along the lines of the document that the accused would have shown Agliotti, it without fanfare and without so much as a blush or an explanation, miraculously became the document that was in fact shown to Agliotti. The accused was then asked if he had declassified the document. He responded that he had. When asked where the declassification stamp appeared on the document, the accused responded that he would show the declassification stamp on the original of the document when he brought it. When asked why he had not made a photocopy of the declassified document the accused responded that he would then have had to make a photocopy of the entire document. It is not apparent why the accused could not just have photocopied the same two pages of the declassified document as he did with H2.

The next day the accused produced the original of exhibit H2. The original is exhibit H5a and the copy of exhibit H5a is exhibit H5. The document which was tendered as an original document was clearly not an original. The so-called declassification stamp was no more than a date stamp. The date stamp was itself not complete in that it did not show the day of the month. The compiler of the document, Mphego, never signed the document as he should have. The document only bears the signatures and initials of the accused. The letter type and font on portions of H2 and H5a  differ.  Although the accused  agreed  that the differences  were  obvious  he  could  not furnish  an explanation therefore. Finally the accused was unable to
explain how the complete logo was not displayed on the alleged original document but appears in full on the alleged copy.

Yes, just have a look please. ― / said I did not see 16 to 19.
Ja but remember, all I am asking you is, why did you give it to Agliotti, 16 to 19? ― If I had not seen it I could not have given it to him.
No we cannot go there Mr Selebi.  You gave it to him. ― / said the one that I saw is up to, from 12 to 15. That is what I saw. It ends with "Commissioner of oath". You never... ― No I did not.
You never, that portion 16 to 19 you have never seen? ― / did not.
COURT: Let us just get it clear. You never saw it and you never gave it to Agliotti? --- Agreed. MR NEL: You know Mr Selebi, I want to be really fair and I would just want you to think about this. As you stand there you are convinced you never gave A16 to A19 to Agliotti? ― 16, from p 16 to 19...
You never gave to Agliotti? ― / am convinced, because I never saw it. I never had it.
And if Agliotti, no not if, he said that you gave it to him, but
that is a lie, because you did not? ― It is untrue.
Now the document that you remember having given him
that is now A6 12 to 15. There is no indication that that is
an email am I right? ― No there is no indication.
The only indication is that it is an unsigned statement that
is what it is? ― Yes.
You see Mr Selebi, I really have difficulty with your answer now, because we dealt with this email yesterday and you never yesterday denied that you gave it Agliotti. ― / never gave it, 16 to 19. If you are talking about 12 to 15 I say yes. 12 to 15. That is what contained in the dossier. That one I say yes, 16 to 19 I did not see. Before I deal with it, I am putting it to you, you are changing your version. ― You are wrong.

The emails I have and the dossier that I have comes directly from the media. But this was not part of it, 16 to 19? ― 16 to 19 I did not see.
Let us just, remember we had, I hope you can remember. We had this argument about the Kebbie murder yesterday, why would share detail of the Kebbie murder with Agliotti, remember that? ― Yes.
You never denied that you gave him the information, you just said that he knew about it therefore you did not care? Are you changing today? ― Me and you yesterday had an argument when you asked me if I may remind that Pikoli asked me about an intercepted email. I said to you then that is a blue lie because he never asked me about an intercepted email because we never intercepted any email. The email that I am talking about, the information I had, the document that I have is documents that came directly from the media.   That is why I was reading the portion I was reading from this dossier.

discussion about the murder with you.
Now as you stand there, why did I ask you the questions,
where did I get the information from?    ― Which
information?
That you shared information, that you shared detail of the Kebble murder with Agliotti, where did I get it from? --1 do not know where you got it from. I really do not know. Can you remember that argument about Jos Diedericks? -- Yes.
Where did I get that from? ― / do not know. Can you remember the argument or the cross examination about a Mr Mazibuko? Where did I get that from? ― I really do not know where you got the information from. I am   not   telling  you,   I   am   not   intercepting  your communication, I am not looking at that so that I know you knew Mazibuko from this, I do not know. Mr Selebi you know the word intercept got you all worried and you are not concentrating, because the word intercept is worrying.  Why do you not just listen to the questions, because I am putting it to you Mr Selebi this is the worst change of a version that I have ever seen. ― It is just not true, what you are saying.

298. The accused's evidence in this regard is unacceptable. He clearly did not instruct his legal team that he had not received a portion of exhibit A6. His evidence vacillated between being in receipt of the entire exhibit and only a portion of it and between furnishing Agliotti with the entire exhibit or only a portion of it. It is submitted by counsel for the state that the only reason for the change in evidence is the suggestion that the e-mail portion of exhibit A6 had been intercepted by SAPS. In this regard the content of an affidavit deposed to by Pruis was put to the accused. Pruis was present when the documents were handed over to the accused. In the affidavit he stated that he had never seen the e-mail portion of exhibit A6. Pruis' statement as put to the accused assumes significance in the light of the suggestion that the e-mail portion of exhibit A6 had been intercepted. It should be pointed out that the accused had intimated that Pruis would be called by him as a witness. It was in this context that Pruis' statement was put to the accused. Despite the intent to call Pruis he was not called as a witness.

299. There is no good reason not to accept Agiiotti's evidence that the entire content of exhibit A6 was handed over to him by the accused.

300. Whilst the aforegoing were described by the state as the big five lies and to which one has been added, making them the six big lies, there are other portions of the accused's evidence which reflect negatively on his credibility and that must be examined.

301. First the accused testified that he never signed subsistence and travelling claim forms. The accused was referred to such claim forms signed by him. The accused was then asked why he had said that he never signed such a claim. His unsatisfactory response was that he never completed such a claim form but that he signed claim forms that were completed for him. In dealing with one of the claim forms the accused stated that he had not signed the particular form and that his signature had been affixed by way of a stamp. The accused explained that because of the large number of documents that had to be signed in his office a stamp was created that looked like his signature. The accused was asked if this was not dangerous. He responded by saying that he trusted the people that he worked with. Clearly on the accused's evidence the impression was created that the stamped signature was not only used for innocuous documents. Grove testified that there was a stamp of the accused's signature. It was used to sign Christmas cards. The stamp was made available by the accused in December, utilised for the purpose of signing the Christmas cards and then returned to the accused. So much for the accused trusting his staff. Grove made it quite clear that a signature brought about by a stamp would not be accepted  by SAPS's financial department. As to the accused's evidence that on one claim form his signature was brought about by way of a stamp, the accused brought the stamp to court and the stamp of his signature was affixed to exhibit H7. The accused was referred to the claim form on which he had testified his signature had been affixed by way of the stamp (exhibit C5 p 1027). The accused conceded that his signature had not been brought about by the stamp.

302. Second, the accused testified that he received a gift voucher from the Taiwanese embassy. He added that the gift was to his wife and not to him. He stated emphatically that the gift was recorded in his gift register. He stated that he had given instructions for the voucher to be recorded in the gift register and that he had checked and it was in the register. The accused testified that Grove kept the gift register. It was manifest from the accused's evidence that the gift register did in fact exist. Later in cross examination it emerged that the instruction to put the voucher in the gift register was given to a female who worked with Grove. Grove confirmed that she and a Ms Bosch administered the accused's office. Grove was unaware of the existence of any gift register in the accused's office. Needless to say none was produced by the accused.

304. Fourth, the accused testified that he had seen a paid cheque drawn on his account in favour of the City Council of Tshwane. The cheque bore the number 459. It was certainly not part of exhibit CC. The accused undertook to bring the cheque to court. Subsequently the accused was asked if he had brought the cheque to court. He responded that he had not but that he had found the counterfoil to the cheque. The accused was reminded of his evidence that he had seen the cheque, He stated that he had looked for the cheque but could not find it. It was put to the accused as is apparent from exhibit C5 annexure L1 on p 758 and 759 that the cheque had not gone through the accused's bank account and accordingly had not been received back from the bank. The accused was unable to offer any comment. His evidence that he had seen the cheque was clearly false.

305. Fifth, the accused's evidence that he was unaware that Thema was a state witness. The accused's counsel cross examined Hankel in respect of Thema. In the course hereof Hankel was asked if he had seen Thema's statement. He was further told that Thema was a state witness. A portion of Thema's statement was put to Hankel. All this could not have been lost on the accused. Prior to Thema's release as a state witness, the accused arranged a meeting with
Thema where he discussed the missing Operation Chaser file with him. When this was raised with him, the accused's immediate response was to deny that he was aware that Thema was a potential state witness. In the light of that set out above this denial has no substance to it and must be rejected.

308.   It is perhaps, no wonder, that the accused's counsel did not endeavour in their heads of argument to argue that the accused's version on any issue in dispute was reasonably possibly true. They in essence argued the accused's case on the basis of the state's evidence. They submitted that they did this on the basis of a worst case scenario. Considering the quality of the accused's evidence it would appear that they had very little option but to argue on the state's case. Nonetheless in considering the issues in dispute the accused's evidence will be considered and a determination will be made whether the accused's version is reasonably possibly true.

309. It is never pleasant to make an adverse credibility finding against a witness. It stigmatises the witness as a liar and a person of low moral fibre. It proclaims to all that the word of the person against whom the finding has been made cannot, without more, be relied upon. It is a stigma that remains forever, it is so more unpleasant to make such an adverse credibility finding against the person who stood at the head of SAPS in regard to events which unfolded whilst he was at the head of SAPS. Everyday society in general and the courts in particular rely on the honesty, integrity and truthfulness of policemen and women. Mostly this reliance is not misplaced. In the case of the accused it was.

He has, in this regard, not set an example that must be emulated. On the contrary, members of SAPS must know and value the importance placed on their credibility and integrity and conduct themselves in such a manner as not to tarnish it.

"that the appeal must succeed if any criticism, however slender, of the witnesses' evidence were well founded"
(Per SCHREINER J A in R v Nhlapo (AD 10 November 1952) quoted in R v Bellingham 1955 (2) SA 566 (A) at 569). It has been said more than once that the exercise of caution must not be allowed to displace the exercise of common sense".

wrote it I interpreted it as being, as you know, John Stratton".

338. After termination of their relationship Muller and Agliotti remained friends. Muller stated that she went overseas with Agliotti twice after termination of their relationship. They went to Thailand at request of Agliotti to try and reconcile. This was not successful. Agliotti accompanied Muller once to London, Agliotti continued to have the use of her office and Muller continued performing secretarial services for Agliotti. Based on this the accused's counsel suggested that the relationship between Muller and Agliotti had not been as completely severed as Muller had testified. There is no basis for this suggestion. Muller appeared to be a strong willed and determined woman. When she testified that she moved Agliotti out of her home, there can be no doubt that she did just that. Although they remained friends the relationship between them was severed.

340. An additional ground can be added to this general attack on the credibility of Muller. In her statements she never mentioned that she removed the sum of R10000 from the sum of R120000 before she put it in the bag. When asked to explain why it was not mentioned she responded that she had not considered it relevant.

346. Additional corroboration for the state's case in respect of this payment is to be found in the evidence of Friedman. He testified, as is set out above, in regard to the accused's bizarre spending pattern. For present purposes it is only necessary to state that in January 2005 the total amount paid out of the accused's bank account amounted to R465.35 and in February 2005 to R188.12. No credible explanation for this was provided. The accused's wife, who was proclaimed as the person who was in charge of the household's finances, was not called as a witness to explain this. The absence of cash cheques and cash withdrawals, also referred to in Friedman's report, were not explained.

347.   Further corroboration is to be found in the accused's foreign currency transactions. Reference will be made to two. The accused received an advance for a visit to France in the amount of R8537.17. Notwithstanding this the accused utilised the sum of R13064.15 to purchase euros for this journey on 3 June 2005. Interestingly enough and after the visit the accused sold 680 euro at a rand value of R5193.90 on 28 June 2005. It is apparent from this exposition that the accused in effect spent slightly more than  his advance.   He was  unable to furnish  any explanation for his conduct. Absent an explanation it appears that the accused was attempting to launder money or create an explanation for having excess cash in his possession.  The  accused   received   an   advance  of R8954.81. Notwithstanding this the accused utilised the sum of R21796.65 to purchase $3152 on 28 July 2005.

After the visit the accused sold $2237 at rand value of R14020.70 on 19 August 2005. It is apparent that the accused spent slightly less than his advance. He was again unable to furnish any explanation for his conduct. It appears that the accused was attempting to create the same impression as set out above.

354. It was finally argued in regard to this cheque by the accused's counsel that it has been demonstrated clearly in the evidence that the proceeds of this cheque of R30 000.00 did not go to the accused but was utilised by Agliotti for other purposes. It is submitted that Agiiotti's evidence illustrates that the only inference to be drawn is that the proceeds of this cheque was used as a clearance payment for a drug transaction that he was involved in. The basis for

373. The accused testified in cross examination that during 2006, because of the allegations in the press against Agliotti, he requested SAPS to conduct an investigation into Agliotti and to bring back to him anything that was concrete. It was later put to the accused that the DSO wanted access to the UK reports in connection with Agliotti. The accused testified that he gave instructions for the reports to be made available but made no enquiries as to the content of the reports. This evidence is improbable in view of his prior instruction that he requested SAPS to conduct an investigation into Agliotti.

374. The UK report, exhibit A1, is not the type of document that the man in the street would have knowledge about. The document was at all times in the possession of SAPS. There is no suggestion that Agliotti could have gained knowledge of the existence and the content of the document from any source other than a source connected to SAPS. Whilst Agliotti could not recall the content of the document completely accurately, his recollection of the content and appearance thereof is sufficient to establish that exhibit A1 was the document that was shown to him.
On the evidence the only person who could have shown exhibit A1 to Agliotti is the accused. This conclusion is arrived at notwithstanding the comments made in respect of Agliotti's general credibility and the fact that he is a single witness. As set out above there is sufficient corroboration for Agliotti's evidence in this regard. The accused's denial that he permitted Agliotti to read the UK report is not reasonably possibly true.

378. The accused's evidence that he showed a document to Agliotti provides corroboration for Agiiotti's evidence that the accused showed him a document and moreover corroboration that the document had to do with Jurgen Kogl, All that has to be determined is whether a portion of the NIE is that which was shown. Agliotti testified that during 2005 the accused showed him a document which was pretty thick in size. The document had a blue covering on its top and bottom. It was opened and there were possibly two lines that were underlined. The accused asked Agliotti if he could identify the person referred to in the two lines. Agliotti could not remember the exact wording of the two lines. They were to the effect that Jurgen Kogl reports that the Kebbles are paying the accused. The accused indicated that this document was an intelligence report that went to the President. Agliotti referred to this document as an NIA report because that is what he perceived it to be. Agliotti also referred to the document as an NIA report in exhibit A21. Agliotti did not know who Jurgen Kogl was. He made enquiries from the Kebbles and Stratton. He was told that they had entered into an unsuccessful business venture with Kogl and there was a strained relationship between them. Agliotti subsequently informed the accused of what he had learnt. The accused was rather upset and stated that he would demand an apology.

379.   Counsel for the accused argue that all copies of the draft NIE were destroyed at the meeting where it was discussed. This certainly was the evidence of Gilder. This is however not devastating to the state's case as submitted by the accused's counsel. It is clear on Gilder's evidence that the NIE would be circulated to the participants of the meeting three to four days before the meeting. The distribution of the NIE before the meeting would permit the participants to the meeting of making a copy thereof and the showing thereof or of the distributed NIE itself to Agliotti. The fact that the accused was not a participant at the meeting is also not destructive of the state's case. The draft NIE was distributed to Lalla who represented SAPS and who reported to the accused.

380. It is correct, notwithstanding Agiiotti's evidence, that the information that he saw was on two pages of the NIE and not on one as testified to by him. His memory may have let him down in this regard or when Gilder printed exhibit G the format may have altered slightly resulting in the information which Agliotti saw being on two pages rather than one. Agliotti identified the document that he saw as an NIA report. He testified as to its content. The state produced a draft NIE report with similar content. This cannot be sheer coincidence.

391. The reasons the accused furnished for the disclosure of exhibit A6 are so weak that they cannot be reasonably possibly true. Although he masked his reasons for disclosure, regard being had to the content of the document and the time of its disclosure, indicate as the only reasonable inference that the accused must have intended to warn Agliotti of a DSO investigation and give him details of an investigation wherein Agliotti was implicated whilst the Paparas bail application was proceeding. This can only be construed as a benefit which Agliotti derived out of the relationship between htm and the accused.

393. The fourth benefit that Agliotti received was his ability to secure the attendance of the accused at dinners and meetings.

395. It is inconceivable that the accused would have been wilting to be in the company of the Kebbles and their associates let alone have dinner with them. The accused was aware of the content of the interview which was held on 28 August 2003 between Mphego and the accused. He therefore knew that the Kebbles were subjected to police monitoring. In addition he knew there were discussions between Agliotti and the Kebbles relating to the payment of $1.5m to him. He had seen and heard this on the DVD recording of the meeting of 28 August 2003. Despite all this he, as the highest officer in the SAPS, was prepared to be in their company without even another member of SAPS present. The accused, who testified that he was trained in intelligence, and who is not naive, would not have exposed himself to the obvious risks of being in the company of the Kebbles, unless he was not in a position to refuse the request.

400. The same applies with regard to the Tidmarsh meeting and the Nassif meeting at which the Jumean issue was discussed as well as the other meetings referred to by Sanders.

401. The Tidmarsh meeting had added benefits. Rautenbach through Tidmarsh was given information to enable him to comment on a proposed letter playing on government concerns that would not in the normal course have been be available to him. The accused attended this meeting, on his evidence to obtain confirmation of corruption by Ngcuka. He would have it that he did this alone. It is so improbable that it can be rejected on the face of it as not reasonably possibly true.

402. The Kya Sands operation is a cause of concern. The accused appears to have been the only person in SAPS in possession of all the relevant facts and in particular of Agliotti's role. At the very least when the accused read the motivation for the reward of R500000 to Stemmet he must have realised that it was factually incorrect, it did not refer to Agliotti's role and it may, by reason thereof, have exaggerated the role played by Stemmet. The accused was also aware that Agliotti had enquired whether he would be paid a reward. Yet despite all this the accused authorised the payment of R500000 to Stemmet. Stemmet in turn subsequently paid R100000 to Agliotti. There is no evidence of the accused playing any role in the payment by Stemmet to Agliotti. Finally no prosecutions flowed from this operation. On the evidence the Kya Sands operation leaves a bad taste in the mouth. It cannot be held however that the state has proved that Agliotti gained any benefit from it.

If he knows of a point in favour of the accused, he must bring it out (see S v Van Rensburg 1963 (2) SA 343 (N) at 343 F-G; Phato v Attorney-General, Eastern Cape and Another 1994 (2) SACR 734 (E) at 757 d). If he knows of a credible witness who can speak of facts which go to show the innocence of the accused, he must himself call that witness if the accused is unrepresented; and if represented, tender the witness to the defence."