Pikoli mum on Mbeki's suspension claim

Former president Thabo Mbeki has reiterated Vusi Pikoli wasn't suspended to protect Jackie Selebi.

Late former police commissioner Jackie Selebi’s funeral service at the Dutch Reform Church Moreletta Park. Picture: Vumani Mkhize/EWN.

JOHANNESBURG - Former National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) head Vusi Pikoli has declined to respond to remarks made by former President Thabo Mbeki, who has denied allegations that he suspended Pikoli to protect Jackie Selebi.

The former national police commissioner died more than a week ago after a long illness. He was laid to rest at the weekend.

Selebi was convicted on charges of corruption in 2010 and was released on medical parole in 2012, after serving less than 300 days of his 15-year sentence.

Through a letter read out at Selebi's funeral, Mbeki said there was no solid information that the former national police commissioner acted in a corrupt manner, adding that the NPA was the only institution that could clarify who was right and who was wrong.

In the letter, Mbeki said he didn't protect his friend from being prosecuted.

"We did not suspend the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Vusi Pikoli, to stop him arresting and prosecuting Jackie."

Pikoli says he doesn't want to respond to Mbeki's comments as he's already stated his side in his book My Second Initiation: The Memoir of Vusi Pikoli.

Mbeki said Selebi was not a villain, like many people tried to label him, but rather a hero.

WATCH: Jackie Selebi laid to rest

At the same time, former Crime Intelligence head Mulangi Mphego says he has consistently spoken out against what he considers the unfair prosecution of Selebi but cannot say why the NPA did not act on what he considers crucial evidence.

Mphego claims Selebi's corrupt relationship with convicted drug lord Glenn Agliotti was justified by an intelligence operation and says the NPA did not comply with its own policies when they took a decision to prosecute.

He says critical evidence was kept away from the courts.

"I think that the court process was subverted by the fact that critical evidence was suppressed from entering that sphere. I think that the biased manner in which the investigation was carried out subverted the efforts of court. So the conclusion that the court arrived at, on the basis of incomplete information, is suspect."