THE positive view of the public hearings into the 1999 arms deal, which begin in Pretoria today, is that they will provide the public with an insight into some of the work that has been done by the three agencies charged with jointly conducting the probe into allegations of corruption and other aspects of the multibillion-rand procurement process.

A less charitable view is that the hearings are a cynical public relations ploy that will in fact subvert the overall investigation in a manner designed to serve the interests of the African National Congress, which some believe wants to head off a thorough investigation that could damage its interests and the reputations of leading members.

The scepticism widely felt towards the investigating agencies and their heads national director of public prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka, Public Protector Selby Baqwa and Auditor-General Shauket Fakie may be unfair. For that, however, they can blame government's mismanagement of the saga, from the exclusion of the special investigating unit to the clamping down on the efforts of the public accounts committee to monitor the investigation.

Add to that the evidence of political pressure imposed on them by the executive, and it becomes apparent why they will be on trial in Pretoria in the weeks ahead as much as will those called to appear before them.

Ngcuka and Baqwa's status in the investigation has not been helped by the report in Noseweek magazine last month that they attended a meeting at the home of ANC chief whip Tony Yengeni earlier this year to discuss the probe. Yengeni is, of course, not only a prominent ANC leader but also deeply involved as a subject of the probe. Were this a court trial, and were Baqwa and Ngcuka judges, there would be cause for them to recuse themselves from the hearing.

If this phase of the investigation is going to be useful, or even credible, it will require the three to ensure their conducting of the hearings is beyond reproach.

Little has been announced yet about the procedures they plan to follow. They have assured the public that they will take account of fears that information will be disclosed prematurely that could damage the forensic investigation.

At the same time, they cannot be seen to be tightly controlling the hearing in a manner designed to minimise the emergence of disclosures damaging to government. So it is vital that counsel representing interested parties be allowed to conduct their own cross-examination of witnesses.

These interested parties could be anyone, from opposition politicians to aspirant contractors who lost out in the procurement process.

The world will be watching.  

With acknowledgment to Business Day.