Arms deal probe not protecting people in government - Commission |
Publication |
defenceWeb |
Date | 2012-10-24 |
Reporter | Kim Helfrich |
Web Link | www.defenceweb.co.za |
The commission of inquiry appointed by South
Africa to investigate allegations of fraud,
corruption and irregularity in the arms deal has
dismissed the perception that it is protecting
certain individuals in the current government.
Commission of Inquiry chairman Judge Willie
Seriti of the Supreme Court of Appeal refuted
perceptions that the Pretoria-based Commission
is dragging its feet and conducting its work “in
a manner calculated to prevent disclosure of
wrongdoing to protect certain individuals in the
current government”.
Last week the Mail & Guardian reported that
Seriti approved tapping phone conversations that
led to arms deal corruption charges against
President Jacob Zuma being dropped. Commission
spokesman William Baloyi told the Mail &
Guardian that Seriti could not recall whether he
had signed the forms allowing the National
Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to tap conversations
between its own head, Bulelani Ngcuka, and
Scorpions head Leonard McCarthy.
Mokotedi Mpshe, Acting National Director of
Public Prosecutions, dropped corruption charges
against Zuma in April 2009, citing the tapped
phone conversations. Concerns were raised over a
possible conflict of interest arising from
Seriti’s involvement in the phone tapping and
his position as commission chair.
“The allegations have no factual basis but we
have to respond in order to dispel these
perceptions,” said Baloyi, who dismissed other
allegations relating to the commission. “The
submission made by Terry Crawford-Browne [a long
time and vociferous opponent of the arms
acquisition process] is being peddled as
containing sufficient
evidence regarding
one term of reference, the offsets. It is
also suggested his submission contains
conclusive evidence
that a successful bidder paid bribes to
be awarded a contract. Another suggestion is
that there is no
need for the Commission to conduct any further
investigation and it should go ahead and
recommend cancellation of the contracts.
This is a simplistic
and disingenuous
view of the Commission’s mandate and can only
mislead.”
The Commission was established by Presidential
decree last September and given two years to
finish its work. It has been charged with
seeking out the possibility of fraud, corruption
or bribery in the course of the SA National
Defence Force’s acquisition of new aircraft,
ships and submarines.
The South African government announced in 1998
that it would buy frigates, submarines, light
utility helicopters, lead-in fighter trainers
and fighter jets to upgrade the SA Air Force and
SA Navy. Preferred bidders were announced the
same year with deals signed in December 1999
following negotiations with European and
Scandinavian suppliers.
Commission members have visited a number of
foreign countries to date as part of their
investigation. This has been done in terms of a
specified work programme that will see public
hearings start in the first quarter of next
year.
“The Commission is now in its second phase
analysing the
massive amount of documentation received
from various bodies, including agencies that
previously conducted investigations into the
subject of Judge Seriti’s Commission. It is
sensitive in that interaction with foreign
agencies which also conducted investigations
into aspects of the procurement package is
currently underway.
“At the same time other investigations are
underway internally.
Drawing up of witness lists to be called to
public hearings is also being done.”
The first round of
public hearings will be in Pretoria and
Baloyi downplayed any possibility of the
Commission travelling abroad for further public
hearings.
“We have to be cost conscious and it is cheaper
to fly people to South Africa to appear than for
the Commission with its support personnel and
equipment to move out of the country,” he said.
With acknowledgement to Kim Helfrich and defenceWeb.
It will be
simplistic and disingenuous if the Commission’s
report is not made public.
I wonder whether the second round of public
hearings will be in Cape Town?
One can but wonder who is on these witness lists
to be called to public hearings?
At least the Commission has confirmed that it
has a massive amount of documentation. So each
witness should be afforded adequate discovery of
those angles relevant to them.
My jowls should be a slither like those of
Pavlov's dogs before a feeding session, but they
are bone dry.
Current Quiz
What happened to Pavlov's dogs?
At least some of them.
I decided this time to open up the field
questions slightly wider than the Arms Deal
because no-one seems capable of answering those
questions.
Hint: the answer still involves the inclination
of man to annihilate his fellows.