Paper trail

When KPMG auditor Dean Friedman took the stand, he pointed out a number of irregularities with Jackie Selebi's account. These included:

• Selebi had an unusually high bank balance ? it didn't dip below R79 000 in the year of 2005.
• Agliotti claims that he made two large payments (R110 000 and R200 000) to Selebi at the end of 2004. Friedman claimed Selebi's withdrawals reduced dramatically in the first few months of 2005. Between January and March 2005, Selebi withdrew no cash from his personal account and cashed no cheques.
• Although Selebi withdrew cash and cheques worth R126 000 from his cheque and credit card accounts between March 2004 and January 2005, this amount plummeted to R25 000 for the period covering the next 12 months.
• Selebi earned more than R143 000 from selling foreign currency between 2003 and 2006. The State claims that there is no legal paper trail to explain who gave him the bulk of these euros and dollars. It also claims that Selebi and his wife sold more currency than could be accounted for after trip-related expenses. On a related note, it has been alleged that Selebi was paid the Rautenbach money in three portions of $10 000.

Selebi claims that: There wasn't a sudden reduction in the amount that he was withdrawing from his account. Rather, he argued, the expenditure of the previous months had been inflated because of house renovations and university tuition fees.

Selebi's lawyer's strongest argument was that the KPMG auditors couldn't find any unexplained cash or credit card payments going into Selebi's account. All of the money in his account could be explained by legitimate earnings.

Courtroom sideshows

The Selebi corruption trial has been marked by a number of courtroom sideshows. The trial almost ended before it had begun when it emerged that, as a result of a repeated 'typing error', the dates on the charge sheet had the period of alleged corruption ending in 2005 instead of 2006. Luckily, Judge Joffe allowed for the charge sheet to be amended.

This was followed by a tussle over whether an off-the-record 2008 video of a meeting between Agliotti, police commissioner Mulangi Mphego and the NIA's Arthur Fraser, in which Agliotti made contradictory statements about bribing Selebi, should be allowed in court. The defence wanted to use the video as evidence and Judge Joffe allowed it to be provisionally entered as evidence.

The defence's next move was to apply for the recusal of Judge Joffe, claiming that he was biased against Jackie Selebi. The State opposed the application. If the judge recused himself, the trial would need to be restarted. Judge Joffe, however, who took some umbrage at accusations of bias, could find no valid reason to recuse himself and consequently dismissed the application.

As if the constant bickering between the prosecutors was not enough, the courtroom saw further drama when an unknown woman in the audience interrupted the testimony of Dean Friedman, demanding to speak to Jackie Selebi's lawyer. The trial was briefly halted, and, for once, the State and the defence agreed: the woman was completely 'incoherent'.

What do you think of the Selebi trial thus far? Who is lying? Or, perhaps a better question, who isn't lying?