Glenn Agliotti was "one of the worst, if not the worst, witnesses ever to testify in a South African court".
This was the claim of former police boss Jackie Selebi's legal team, arguing in the South Gauteng High Court on Wednesday that Selebi should be discharged.
Selebi's advocate, Jaap Cilliers, began his argument on Wednesday morning after telling Judge Meyer Joffe that he would apply for a discharge under the provisions of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Cilliers is building his argument on the alleged unreliability of Agliotti, a convicted drug dealer and long-time friend of Selebi, who he often referred to as the state's "single witness".
He further claims Agliotti's evidence "destroyed" the state's case.
Agliotti testified in the Selebi trial that he paid Selebi about R1-million over a period of time and also bought expensive clothes for him and his family. The state says this was corruption because Selebi, in return, provided Agliotti with information of police investigations he wasn't entitled to.
Tactics
Joffe questioned Cilliers about his tactics while cross-examining Agliotti. "In your [Cilliers's] supplementary heads you make submissions that Agliotti was probably the worst witness ever to testify in a South African court. How do we rely on him from time to time?
"It is quite a remarkable feature of this case. In your cross-examination you first built him up, you got statements from him that were favourable to you. Then you went on to attack his credibility. If he has no credibility, how do you go to Agliotti to find support for you submissions?"
Cilliers admitted that Agliotti's evidence is also "my dilemma" but said it was "mainly the dilemma of the state".
Cilliers again repeated his claim that the state was conspiring against Selebi by building a case against him over years.
"Why, if Mr Selebi was this corrupt person he was made out to be in the press and in the charge sheet, do we find a situation where the investigation was started off with allegations that were blatantly untrue? This gives some warning to the court that something is wrong.
"Somebody is trying to build a case against the accused in order to neutralise him for some reason, no other inference can be drawn from this. It is an extremely important feature of this case — the building of a case against the accused based on blatantly untruthful allegations."
Arguments continue.