the Mail & Guardian in Response to :
|Publication||Mail & Guardian|
Mail & Guardian
I was very interested in the article entitled "Naval Officer Shielded by Arms Report Changes" by your Paul Kirk published in the Weekly Mail & Guardian on 2002-01-11.
While, I stand by the first quoted statement attributed to me, i.e. "I know that the drafts were altered. I do not suspect it, I know it.", I deny that the second observation attributed to me is accurate, i.e. that "Young..... said it was obvious he wanted them with a view to legal proceedings over his exclusion from the arms deal."
The reason that I want the drafts of the Joint Investigation Teams's Report into the Strategic Defence Procurement Packages, i.e. the "Arms Deal", is that I cannot believe that with such material findings made in Chapter 11 of the final report, that there were no conclusions or recommendations in this chapter. This is despite the Auditor-General, Shauket Fakie, saying on national TV during the press conference following the release of the report "that each and every chapter has key findings and recommendations".
In addition, very little of my unchallenged evidence during the Public Phase of the investigation, i.e. the Public Protector's hearings, was included in the report. Where there are references to my evidence, there is an unacceptable number of material errors in the report.
Finally, the section entitled "Findings" of Chapter 11 of the report bears little correlation to the main body of that chapter.
I would appreciate it if you could publish this important correction of the facts at your earliest opportunity.