Legal experts, analysts and political parties not optimistic about procedure

IT IS supposed to be a watershed event for democracy and openness in post-apartheid SA, but as late as yesterday evening details of the public hearing on the arms deal remained shrouded in secrecy and intrigue.

The issue is whether there was any wrongdoing in the processes that led to government purchasing arms worth billions of rands.

Public Protector Selby Baqwa is to chair the hearings to be held at the Pretoria High Court assisted by one person from each of the offices of the auditor-general and that of the national directorate of public prosecutions.

Witnesses have been "invited" to appear, but will not be subpoenaed if they refuse to appear.

The public protector's office would not reveal matters of process, or who was going to participate. The national directorate of public prosecutions, also reluctant to comment, insists the public protector is the leading agent.

As to why the panel will only ask questions without the opportunity of cross-examination, the public protector's spokeswoman, Nicolette Teichman, said the hearings were "just to get information" and "not to drive people into a corner".

But, she insists, it will "not be a completely soft approach".

Then what, ultimately, it is hoped would be achieved?

Teichman said the idea was to investigate "matters that lend themselves to public investigations, and to prove to the public that their right to know" was being protected and that something was being done.

The public's right to know would be best served, supposedly, by the fact that television cameras and tape recorders will not be allowed inside the room where the hearings will be conducted.

And the public protector's office would have people believe that all is not lost, as journalists will at least be allowed to sit in and take written notes only.

"Up to two months" is how long Teichman says the investigation will take and that is a "wide estimate".

Legal experts, analysts and political parties are not all that optimistic.

"They don't expect people to go there voluntarily, do they, knowing such people could even face defamation suits from the people they may implicate?" asked a lawyer.

The Pan Africanist Congress's Patricia de Lille, after almost two years of allegations, says that "we should get down to business and not endless public hearings that do not add value to the actual investigation".

The hearings, she insists, are "another attempt to divert attention from the real issues".

Democratic Alliance leader Tony Leon could not agree more.

The ostensible reason was to treat the matter as if there was nothing to hide, yet, Leon says, it now seemed "it is another public fishing expedition bound to fail".

An analyst who questions the hearing's efficacy asks the question: If anyone is really serious about openness and transparency, why would they not wait for a proper investigation and, depending on the outcome, proceed with criminal or civil action against wrongdoers?

"The problem is that the powers that be want to get the best of both worlds," says another legal expert. "It's a subterfuge, but I wish they could prove me wrong."  

With acknowledgment to Vuyo Mvoko and Business Day.