Cape Town - The three bodies investigating claims of irregularities in South Africa's R43 billion arms deal should clarify their terms of reference, the United Democratic Movement said on Monday.

The UDM was dismayed that the investigators were continuing with their investigation launched by Parliament's watchdog public accounts committee (Scopa), despite the fact that Scopa had not issued the terms of reference for the investigation, UDM spokesperson Gerhard Koornhof said.

The investigative team - the offices of the public protector, national directorate of public prosecutions and the auditor-general - had unilaterally announced their intent, without consulting Scopa or Parliament, to conduct hearings in public.

"The UDM calls on the investigators to clarify whether they are operating on the terms of reference of Scopa, the executive, the ruling party, or their own," Koornhof said.

On Sunday, investigators confirmed that public hearings into the multi-billion rand arms deal would start soon and that several people would be "invited" to testify.

However, it appears that Scopa - which originally called for a multi-agency probe into the deal - has been sidelined.

'Scopa is still pretty much in the dark'

Scopa chairperson Gavin Woods told Sapa on Sunday: "The committee is still pretty much in the dark regarding the investigators' plans".

On whether the committee had been sidelined, he said: "We have been sidelined. We had interventions by the Speaker, which by design created uncertainty about accountability arrangements".

"That uncertainty has been exploited to the point that we are now in the dark."

Auditor-General Shauket Fakie had even asked that Scopa members did not contact his staff about the arms deal, Woods said.

Woods said he had written to Speaker Frene Ginwala to clarify the issue of accountability arrangements, but had yet to receive a response.

Ginwala's office said on Monday she was expected to respond to media queries regarding the matter soon.

In a statement later on Monday, the Democratic Alliance said given that the investigators had "committed themselves to a contrived deadline of July" they must release full details of the procedures envisaged for public hearings as soon as possible.

"Witnesses, and their legal counsel, must have this information in order to scrutinise the procedures envisaged, the constitutionality of the public protector's delegation of power to the AG and NDPP, and the overall unprecedented nature of this process before subjecting themselves to it."

Hearings to be judicial?

DA spokesperson Raenette Taljaard said the investigators had not indicated whether the hearings would be of a judicial and/or quasi-judicial nature, nor the rules of procedure that would inform their approach.

Key questions still unanswered included what would the legal basis of public hearings be and what would the procedural rules of the game in these hearings be.

"In addition the DA is concerned at the contrived distinction that appears to be drawn between a 'public hearing' and a public inquiry.

"It is clear that of all the agencies involved in the arms probe only the Public Protector has the power to conduct public inquiries (Section 7 of the Public Protector Act).

"He has carte blanche as to how to structure such an inquiry in accordance with the Act," Taljaard said. 

With acknowledgment to Sapa and News24.