The recent sentencing of Angelo Agrizzi has reignited debate over the use of witness deals in tackling high-level corruption in South Africa. Agrizzi, the former Bosasa executive, received a 10-year sentence wholly suspended for five years in exchange for his cooperation with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). His case underscores a growing possibility that prosecutors may strike similar agreements with key figures in other major investigations.
The development comes amid ongoing inquiries, such as the Madlanga Inquiry and the parliamentary ad-hoc committee hearings, that continue to uncover evidence of widespread corruption within the police and political structures. Expectations are rising that these revelations must now lead to successful prosecutions, not just public outrage.
Former National Director of Public Prosecutions, Vusi Pikoli, once reflected on the controversial necessity of such arrangements in his 2013 book My Second Initiation, which he co-authored with journalist Mandy Wiener. Pikoli defended using immunity deals in the investigation that led to the conviction of former police commissioner Jackie Selebi, arguing that such tactics can be crucial when hard evidence is scarce.
Proving corruption in court remains complex. Payments are often made in cash, with little forensic or documentary proof. Prosecutors may therefore need to rely on state witnesses, insiders willing to testify under immunity or plea agreements, as provided for under Sections 204 and 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act. Pikoli explains that these measures are international best practice in organised crime cases where direct evidence is hard to obtain.
Possible candidates for such arrangements could include mid-level operatives or businessmen linked to alleged criminal networks, should the NPA pursue higher-ranking officials or politicians. However, these deals are not without controversy. Public backlash is likely if known cartel figures or complicit insiders appear to escape justice, even if their cooperation secures convictions of more powerful figures.
South Africa’s experience with witnesses like Glenn Agliotti and Agrizzi himself highlights both the benefits and pitfalls of such strategies. While no new witness deals have yet been confirmed, observers suggest they may be essential if prosecutors hope to bring those implicated in ongoing corruption scandals to justice.
Yet, as Wiener cautions, the price of justice may again be moral compromise, one that the public might find hard to accept.
