The Ceasefire Campaign objects to the dismissal by Judge Willie Seriti, chair of the Commission of Inquiry into the Strategic Defence Procurement Packages, of submissions by ‘the Terry Crawford-Brownes of this world’ before hearings have even commenced. The fact that he did not intend this statement to be divulged to the public merely exacerbates his prejudice; not only did he know he was prejudiced, but he tried to cover it up.

Ceasefire regards itself as one of "the Terry Crawford-Brownes of this world". Not only is Crawford-Browne a member of Ceasefire, we also identify with his admirably indefatigable determination to get to the bottom of the corruption surrounding the arms deal.

There seems to be confusion in the mind of Judge Seriti about the difference between a commission of inquiry and a court case. In a court case the court hears evidence and bases its judgement on that evidence. The job of a commission of inquiry is not merely to hear evidence but to make inquiries that will uncover evidence. The dismissal of Crawford-Browne's submission as 'hearsay' is evidence of his confusion over this point. Even if some of his evidence is 'hearsay', it is the job of the Commission to get to the bottom of that 'hearsay'. He has kept his ear pretty close to the ground and Seriti has to take that seriously. Seriti’s prejudice against Crawford-Browne’s submission has seriously undermined both the credibility of the Commission and its ability to uncover the truth.

In terms of its terms of reference, the Commission must, inter alia, inquire into "the rationale for the Strategic Defence Procurement Packages". In other words, was the arms deal necessary in the first place? This is very material to the Commission's job. If, as Ceasefire argued in its submission to the Commission, the arms deal was unnecessary, then not only does one have to question the motives of the parties to the deal, one also has strong justification for exploring the possibility of unwinding the deal.

Ceasefire's submission was not evidence about facts, it was argument about the rationale for the arms deal. Since we regard ourselves as one of ‘the Terry Crawford-Brownes of this world’, we must assume that Seriti also regards us as such. We must conclude that Seriti expects the Commission to disregard our arguments about the rationale for the arms deal. Again, Seriti has prejudged the issue. We take strong exception to his apparent prejudice about the rationale for the arms deal.

If Jacob Zuma, as President of this country, wishes to ensure that his office is not sullied by the prejudice of the Chair of the Commission he has appointed, it is now up to him to replace Seriti and to reinstate Norman Moabi.

For more information contact:

Rob Thomson
Ceasefire Campaign
Tel: 011 646 5332
Mobile: 072 812 6251
E-mail: admintz@sn.apc.org

With acknowledgement to Ceasefire Campaign.

I am perfectly happy for Norman Moabi to be reinstated.

But what about Hilary Squires for chairman?

Other than being Rhodesian, he is perfect for the job.