One can only conclude that the decision on Zuma was politically palatable to the president, whereas the decision on Selebi was not. The suspension of National Director of Public Prosecutions Vusi Pikoli represents a profound crisis of governance, writes Sam Sole.
Read Themba Maseko’s point
The suspension of National Director of Public Prosecutions Vusi Pikoli represents a profound crisis of governance.
Let’s review the facts as they have dribbled out.
The Scorpions have been investigating National Commissioner Jackie Selebi for almost two years. President Thabo Mbeki has known about this at least since the Mail & Guardian first broke the story in May last year. Several months ago Mbeki was involved in brokering an agreement between the police and the Scorpions regarding access to files at police headquarters, heading off a confrontation between the two security agencies.
Sources close to Pikoli insist that Mbeki has been kept informed about the investigation. Despite this, he has chosen not to suspend Selebi.
As we report elsewhere, on September 10 Scorpions Gauteng boss Gerrie Nel convinced a Randburg magistrate there was sufficient evidence to arrest Selebi. Four days later, he also convinced a Pretoria High Court judge to issue a search warrant against the commissioner. There is no reason to think he was acting without the knowledge of his boss, Pikoli, who must have formed the opinion that there was sufficient evidence to charge Selebi.
The issuing of the warrants did not mean that they would be immediately executed.
Prior to taking action, Pikoli attempted to contact Mbeki to inform him about the warrants. Mbeki was not initially available. Instead, it seems, he instructed Mabandla to write to Pikoli. She did so, apparently demanding access to the Selebi docket and seeking to circumscribe Pikoli’s prerogative to make a decision.
Pikoli replied, asserting that prerogative and warning the minister over her attempt to interfere. That prompted Mbeki to suspend Pikoli on September 23.
On September 28, the Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions, Mokotedi Mpshe, applied successfully to have the arrest warrant cancelled. He later revealed that the Selebi case is the only one that is being ”reviewed” by him.
The inescapable conclusion is that this is as a result of Mbeki’s intervention.
The spin pumped out by those close to the president is that Pikoli should have ”consulted” with Mbeki prior to obtaining the warrants and that he was ”arrogant” in asserting his independence from his political bosses. They speak about the possible destabilising effect that an arrest of Selebi could have and insist that Mbeki needed ”an opportunity to look at the case and make informed decisions”.
Nowhere do Mbeki’s supporters indicate what ”decisions” Mbeki was prevented from making. If it was to manage the fallout from charges being laid against the police commissioner, Mbeki has had months to anticipate that possibility. Instead he has publicly expressed his faith in Selebi.
On the contrary, if one looks at reports in City Press, often a good barometer of the president’s views, it is clear that Mbeki wanted to second-guess Pikoli’s decision. The newspaper reported that Mbeki was not impressed by the evidence placed before him by Pikoli, including affidavits from Selebi associate Glenn Agliotti, and told a confidant that Pikoli ”was either naive or controlled” by his subordinates and thus unfit to hold public office.
This approach is in stark contrast to the decision to charge Jacob Zuma. In that case, Mbeki’s spokesperson stressed that Pikoli had informed the president of this decision merely as a courtesy and had ”not asked for any comment”.
Unless the president can come up with conclusive evidence that Pikoli ”was either naive or controlled” we can only conclude that the difference between the two cases is that the decision on Zuma was politically palatable to Mbeki whereas the decision on Selebi was not.
While Pikoli is answerable to the minister of justice, this accountability, as set out in the National Prosecuting Authority Act, is mainly at an oversight and policy level. Mabandla is entitled to ask for reports on specific cases, but neither she nor Mbeki is entitled to usurp the national director’s discretion. Indeed, that Act states that in the arena of decisions to prosecute, the prosecuting authority is accountable to Parliament, not to the executive.
So far no evidence has been presented that Pikoli is ”naive or controlled”. All we have is the still secret report of former NIA boss Billy Masetlha, supposedly based on the interception of communications between Pikoli and a cabal that included all the people closest to Mbeki, plotting together with white right-wingers, including top Scorpions. Mbeki dismissed both the report and Masetlha. Now, apparently, he wants to resurrect this bogey to help shore up his remaining political alliances.
The president’s credibility has reached a new low.