IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG
Case no: SS 25/2009

Date:3/08/2010
In the matter of: 
THE STATE
and
JACOB SELLO SELEBI
Judgment on Sentence
Joffe J

5. The provisions of s 51{2)(a) read with Part il of Schedule 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 have to be taken into account as well in the determination of an appropriate sentence. These provisions provide for the imposition of a minimum sentence of 15 years imprisonment in the event of a law enforcement officer being convicted of corruption involving amounts of more than R10000. The accused has been so convicted. The amount involved appears from the judgment that was delivered at the conclusion of the trial. It exceeds the sum of R10000 substantially. S 51 (3)(a) of the aforesaid act provides that if the court is satisfied that substantial and compelling circumstances which justify the imposition of a lesser sentence than the prescribed sentence, it shall enter those circumstances on the record of the proceedings and may thereupon impose such lesser sentence.

J. In so doing, account must be taken of the fact that crime of that particular kind has been singled out for severe punishment and that the sentence to be imposed in lieu of the prescribed sentence should be assessed paying due regard to the bench mark which the Legislature has provided."

11. It is in this context and the esteem in which the office that you occupied is held that reference must be made to your performance in the witness box during the trial. No point would be served in repeating that which has already been said in the judgment that was delivered at the conclusion of the trial in regard to your flagrant mendacity. Mr. Selebi you were an embarrassment in the witness box. Firstly, you were an embarrassment to the office you occupied. It is inconceivable that the person who occupied the office of National Commissioner of Police could have been such a stranger to the truth. Secondly, you must have been an embarrassment to those who appointed you. There can be no doubt that had they known the extent that you were prepared to depart from the truth when you thought it was necessary to do so, they would not have been appointed you to that office. Thirdly, you must have been an embarrassment to the members of the South African Police Service who you led. It is not possible to measure the level of embarrassment of police men and women who are in the front line of the fight against crime, who daily put their lives on the line for their fellow citizens and whose credibility and truthfulness is relied upon by their fellow countrymen, when confronted by the reality that their former National Commissioner jettisons the truth when he thinks it will advance his case. These police men and women work in harsh conditions. They do so for the good of their fellow citizens. They deserve more than to be embarrassed in the manner already described. Fourthly, you must have been an embarrassment to all right thinking citizens of this country. They are entitled to expect so much more from the National Commissioner of Police. For a citizen of this country it is incomprehensible that the National Commissioner of Police would be found to be an unreliable witness. Whilst their may be debate and difference of opinion as to competence, effectiveness, suitability and ability, it cannot be doubted that all the people of South Africa would join in rejecting a National Commissioner of Police who is found to be an untruthful witness. Fifthly and finally Mr. Selebi, you were an embarrassment to this court. It is beyond understanding that, a person who occupied the high offices that you did, including that of National Commissioner of Police in which you must have come into contact with the courts, could have believed that any court would have accepted your mendacious and in some respects manufactured evidence. The fact that you must have thought that this evidence would have been believed by this court is an embarrassment to this court in itself.

15.    At present the accused is in receipt of a monthly pension of R20 000 per month. He is the owner of an unencumbered dwelling which is valued at approximately R3m. He is the owner of a motor vehicle and has investments of some R400 000. According to the accused's counsel the state has funded his defense in the present proceedings and may seek to recover the amount so expended from the accused. If this occurs the accused will be destroyed financially.

19.    Corruption can be likened to a cancer. It operates insidiously destroying the moral fibre of the nation. When it is discovered the damage has already been done. Whilst the particular act of corruption may be excised, just as a malignancy may be removed in a surgical intervention, society is not what it was prior to the corrupt act. The roots of justice and integrity, so vital in a fair and democratic society, have been permanently scarred by the corrupt act. The moral fibre of society has to be re-built after the excision of the corruption.

23. It was further argued by the accused's counsel that although it has been held that Agliotti received a quid pro quo from the accused there is no suggestion of any prejudice that the South African Police Service, the country or any other entity or individual suffered as a result of the corruption. Reference is then made to the attendance by the accused of dinners, the making available of the UK report, the making available of the e-mail and the Bill Smith statement and the NIE report, all as being indicative of the absence of prejudice to the county or any other entity or individual. There is simply no merit to this submission. The fact that Agliotti could make the accused available to Rautenbach through Tidmarsh, to Kebble and Stratton and to Nassif, as described in the judgment at the conclusion of the trial, already tarnished the image of the South African Police Service. The making available of the documents referred to above tends to destroy confidence in the South African Police Service. The revelation of the events that were found to have occurred, as set out in the judgment at the conclusion of the trial, caused substantial damage to the image of South African and the South African Police Services.

IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG
Case no: SS 25/2009 
JPV: 0157/2008
Date:3/08/2010
In the matter of:
 THE STATE
and
JACOB SELLO SELEBI

Ruling in terms of S 204(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
Joffe J

6. In the result Ms Muller is discharged from prosecution for the offences specified in exhibit XX1 and Mr Sanders is discharged from prosecution for the offences specified in exhibit XX3. Such discharge shall be entered on the record of these proceedings. No such order is made in respect of Mr Agliotti and Mr Flint.