Section 204 (of the criminal Procedure act – below) may be what a witness such as Agrizzi might be hoping to rely on in any criminal trials which follow on the State Capture Commission. It must be read with section 203 (below) which recognises the right of a witness not to answer self-incriminating questions.

Section 204 provides a mechanism by which a prosecutor may compel the witness to testify by offering indemnity for any crime which the witness may incriminate him/herself in. The indemnity is subject then only to the Court being satisfied that the witness has told the truth. 

(See the leading case of S v Kuyler and Others 2016 (2) SACR 563 (FB))

203 Witness excused from answering incriminating question

No witness in criminal proceedings shall, except as provided by this Act or any other law, be compelled to answer any question which he would not on the thirtieth day of May, 1961, have been compelled to answer by reason that the answer may expose him to a criminal charge.

204 Incriminating evidence by witness for prosecution

(1) Whenever the prosecutor at criminal proceedings informs the court that any person called as a witness on behalf of the prosecution will be required by the prosecution to answer questions which may incriminate such witness with regard to an offence specified by the prosecutor­
(a) the court, if satisfied that such witness is otherwise a competent witness for the prosecution, shall inform such witness­
(i) that he is obliged to give evidence at the proceedings in question;
(ii) that questions may be put to him which may incriminate him with regard to the offence specified by the prosecutor;
(iii) that he will be obliged to answer any question put to him, whether by the prosecution, the accused or the court, notwithstanding that the answer may incriminate him with regard to the offence so specified or with regard to any offence in respect of which a verdict of guilty would be competent upon a charge relating to the offence so specified;
(iv) that if he answers frankly and honestly all questions put to him, he shall be discharged from prosecution with regard to the offence so specified and with regard to any offence in respect of which a verdict of guilty would be competent upon a charge relating to the offence so specified; and
(b) such witness shall thereupon give evidence and answer any question put to him, whether by the prosecution, the accused or the court, notwithstanding that the reply thereto may incriminate him with regard to the offence so specified by the prosecutor or with regard to any offence in respect of which a verdict of guilty would be competent upon a charge relating to the offence so specified.
(2) If a witness referred to in subsection (1), in the opinion of the court, answers frankly and honestly all questions put to him­
(a) such witness shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (3), be discharged from prosecution for the offence so specified by the prosecutor and for any offence in respect of which a verdict of guilty would be competent upon a charge relating to the offence so specified; and
(b) the court shall cause such discharge to be entered on the record of the proceedings in question.
(3) The discharge referred to in subsection (2) shall be of no legal force or effect if it is given at preparatory examination proceedings and the witness concerned does not at any trial arising out of such preparatory examination, answer, in the opinion of the court, frankly and honestly all questions put to him at such trial, whether by the prosecution, the accused or the court.
(4) (a) Where a witness gives evidence under this section and is not discharged from prosecution in respect of the offence in question, such evidence shall not be admissible in evidence against him at any trial in respect of such offence or any offence in respect of which a verdict of guilty is competent upon a charge relating to such offence.
(b) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply with reference to a witness who is prosecuted for perjury arising from the giving of the evidence in question, or for a contravention
of section 319 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955 (Act 56 of 1955).