Another arms inquiry
resignation
April 11 2014 at 02:32pm
By LOUISE FLANAGAN
By LOUISE FLANAGAN
Independent
Newspapers
Judge
Willie Seriti during the Arms Procurement Commission hearing at Sammy Marks
Square, Pretoria. File picture: OupaMokoena
Related Stories
Pretoria - The
arms deal inquiry’s chief evidence leader has unexpectedly left the commission.
His departure
again raises speculation of disputes within the commission, particularly with
chair Judge Willie Seriti.
Advocate
TayobAboobaker SC was one of the 10 advocates and attorneys hired in June 2012
to lead the evidence of the witnesses called to the public hearings in Pretoria.
On Friday
morning Aboobaker, understood to be home in Durban, declined to comment.
The commission
had not commented by the time of publication.
Aboobaker’s
departure was unexpected and is bound to disrupt the hearings; it’s believed he
left because of clashes with Judge Seriti.
There were
originally three judges when the commission was appointed by President Jacob
Zuma in November 2011.
In August, days
before the commission’s delayed public hearings finally started, Judge Francis
Legodi resigned.
There were
rumours of disagreements between the judges over the running of the commission
and hearings, but neither Judge Legodi nor the commission would comment.
When the
hearings got under way, Aboobaker was the team leader for the evidence leaders,
making the opening statement which underlined the need for transparency.
“The commission
has come under extensive criticism from the media and members of the public,
that is as it should be, the weight of public pressure has assisted in defining
the work of the commission and reinforcing its resolve to ensure total
transparency and accountability in its workings and that the public has
confidence in the final report produced by it,” he said at the time.
“The challenges
we have are many, the time available limited, the way forward not entirely
clear. This is because the public nature and transparency of the process is
absolutely critical to its success. Under scrutiny is the conduct of the
executive responsible for the Strategic Defence Procurement Package. It is that
very executive and its functionaries that have the documents vital for a proper
understanding of this process.
“Voluminous
documents have been received from the various state departments but the vast
majority are classified, we record our appreciation to the state departments
for making these documents available.
“What is
important is that these documents should be available insofar as it is possible
for public scrutiny.
“What may have
been regarded as confidential and classified many years ago may not deserve
that label today. It is only the most sensitive of documents which impact upon
the relationship between nations and documents which affect the security of the
state that can justify non-disclosure.”
However, since
then the commission has often been secretive about documentation despite many
documents being rushed through last-minute declassification procedures.
The Star’s
requests for witness statements and accompanying bundles are frequently ignored
or only partly fulfilled.
The hearings
have been repeatedly postponed and witness lists rescheduled, with the
commission running way behind schedule.
This week’s
hearings were again disrupted, with power failures writing off on Thursday’s
plans and another delayed start on Friday morning.
The Star
