Corrupt
Arms Deal Enquiry
Picture: Business Day
THE final report from the four-year
investigation into corruption in the 1996-1999 strategic defence procurement
packages known as the arms deal has been handed to President Jacob Zuma.
It is now time to see whether the
investigation, which cost almost three times its original R40m budget, will
lead to any prosecutions.
But any chance of recovering the
estimated R1bn allegedly paid in bribes related to the deal has faded with the
years that have passed.
There is already a sense that the
report, if it is ever made public, will be a whitewash of the corruption and
theft believed to have been perpetrated in connection with the R70bn deal.
Of particular concern, says David
Maynier, a senior Democratic Alliance member who was subpoenaed to give
evidence to the commission, is the lack of any explicit statement in the
commission’s terms of reference to compel Zuma to make the report public. Zuma
himself was implicated in transactions in which corruption and bribes were
alleged.
Maynier says: “It is in the public
interest for an unredacted copy of the final report, together with copies of
the interim reports, to be made public as soon as possible and tabled in
parliament.
“I sincerely hope I am wrong, but
after appearing as a witness I am convinced that, at least when it comes to the
key issue of whether the arms deal was tainted by fraud or corruption, the
final report will be a whitewash.”
It was the arms deal that led to
more than 780 charges of corruption against Zuma, which were withdrawn by the
national prosecuting authority.
It also got his financial adviser,
Schabir Shaik, sent to jail and is said to be behind the move by Zuma and the
ANC to disband the Scorpions investigative unit.
“Those alleged to have been
involved, including Zuma, have nothing to fear,” Maynier says.
Presidency spokesman Bongani Majola
has condemned the criticism of the commission by the DA, saying it is
“unwarranted, shocking, irresponsible and totally unacceptable”.
“The president will release the
report to the public as soon as he has concluded the necessary processing
thereof,” says Majola.
Corruption Watch head David Lewis
says it is vital to release the report, “even if the intelligence and sensitive
commercial aspects are redacted”.
Critics of the commission point to the way it was run by appeal court judge Willie
Seriti, whose behaviour during the commission’s hearings quickly put him at the centre of the story.
Seriti’s decisions as the
commission’s chairman influenced what information
could be heard and who would be allowed to give evidence. Witnesses and
those who provided information were severely
curtailed, and some information was completely
ignored.
Such was the criticism of these
decisions that the commission felt compelled to warn “members of the public and
interested parties” that it was a “criminal offence to disparage or insult the
commission or its members”.
That the commission and its own
conduct became the focus of so much attention and criticism all but rang the death knell for its credibility and
anything that it was likely to produce. Such was the unhappiness over how the
commission was run and how the information was
managed and shared that many people involved in the process resigned,
including researchers, investigators, evidence leaders and commissioners.
Richard Young, a vocal critic of the
arms deal who has spent at least R20m investigating it since his company lost a
bid for a technology contract, says that after all the time and money invested
in pursuing the truth it would be “self-defeating” to deny Zuma the “benefit of
the doubt”.
“Zuma has said he will release the
report,” Young says. “Let’s give them time to, as they say, process the
report.”
What is a reasonable length of time?
“Six weeks would be too short, six years ... far too long; even six months
would be too long, but they have to be given time. It took three months for the
Farlam Commission report [into the Marikana massacre] to be released.”
The ANC government may want to keep
the report under wraps until after the local
government elections, due any time from May to August.
Expectations of the report, however,
may already be far too high.
Young says the commission of inquiry
has no power of sanction. It can find, for example, that there is plausible and
credible evidence that would need thorough investigation by the Hawks.
“Judge Farlam recommended
investigations into individuals [in the Marikana report],” he says. The most prominent person*2 Farlam identified for
investigation was police commissioner Riah Phiyega, who has been suspended.
Many witnesses in the army*1 and the navy who could have provided direct
knowledge of the process were never called to testify. Young says this could
mean the entire commission process was illegitimate.
No matter what the report does say,
it is unlikely that the arms deal scandal
will go quietly into the night or be forgotten. It provides opposition parties
with too valuable a political weapon.
*1 air force.
The army might get
lucky next time.
Let's give it the
benefit of the doubt.
*2 Other prominent persons were : the Provincial Commissioner of the Police of the North-West Province, Lieutenant General Zukiswa Mbombo; and the delay caused by Major General Naidoo in bringing medical attention to Scene 2.
It is worth watching
the new documentary aired on eTV recently called Miners Shot Down.
Especially worth
watching and the only less than heavy content of it is Ronnie Kasrils, former
Minister of Defence and fellow witness at the Seriti Commission.
Most stark and
possibly the most heavy, is watching the freshly-shot and critically-wounded
miners lying in heaps and just being watched by the tactical policemen and not
receiving any attention.
It's the kind of
response that one might expect more from the South West Africa Police
Counter-Insurgency Wing than the South African Police Service.
At least at SWAPOL
they got R50 an each and a bottle of brandy.
