Drug-lord Glenn Agliotti admitted on Tuesday morning that he lied to the Kebble family about an improper relationship between former police National Commissioner Jackie Selebi and security boss Clinton Nassif.
Still under cross-examination by Agliotti’s defence counsel Jaap Cilliers, Agliotti admitted that he falsely boasted to the Kebbles and their mining company JCI that Nassif was part of the ”Selebi team” to convince them to appoint Nassif as their head of security.
Agliotti last week testified that he was paid $1-million by the Kebbles to ”buy” Selebi’s influence.
He later admitted that Selebi never provided improper assistance to the Kebbles or their companies.
Nassif, who is also set to testify against Selebi in the marathon trial, replaced former police informer Paul Stemmet as the Kebbles’ head of security after being recommended by Agliotti.
On Tuesday Agliotti agreed with Cilliers that he had brought Kebble and his former business partner John Stratton ”under the impression that services were rendered by Nassif under the auspices of the commissioner”.
Agliotti said that he lied because ”the Kebbles wanted a firm to take over from Stemmet. They wanted a force to be reckoned with, a company with credibility”.
He said that if he had not pretended that Nassif and Selebi had a relationship at the time, or that Nassif had provided services for Selebi, there was a chance that Nassif may not have got the job.
”In order to ensure Nassif’s appointment with Kebble,” said Cilliers, ”you requested him to lie about his relationship with the accused.”
Agliotti replied that he had, for ”financial gain for myself and Nassif”.
This financial gain was in the form of the $1-million, a portion of which, according to Agliotti, was given to Selebi. Cilliers told the court on Tuesday his client would testify that he did not receive any of the Kebble money.
Cilliers asked Agliotti why he had never told the court that he had lied ”with regard to the Nassif issue — did you not regard it as an important issue?”
Agliotti replied: ”I did in my evidence in chief, but I made it clear that that I used the accused’s position unbeknown to him. I was never asked to elaborate.”