SO FAR the president, the deputy president, the speaker, at least six cabinet ministers and a host of lesser figures have weighed in on the proposed investigation of government's decision to spend R43bn on foreign military hardware.

Government is entitled to a presumption of innocence in this affair until the reverse is proved. But that requires an investigation the independence of which is beyond question.

The vehemence of government's reaction to the proposed investigation threatens to eclipse the questions about the arms deal. That reaction has gone beyond hostility towards the inclusion of the Heath unit in the investigation.

There are at least 10 aspects of government's reaction that are disturbing:

The lengths to which President Thabo Mbeki and other ministers have gone to portray the reports of the auditor-general and the standing committee on public accounts as having made allegations of criminal conduct. Neither report alleged that crimes had been committed. They called for further investigations;

Government and party pressure on the standing committee. This includes changing key personnel, demoting Andrew Feinstein and subordinating its ANC majority to the party whip. The standing committee is not just any parliamentary committee but the one holding the executive to account for what it does with public funds;

The perception that other key public watchdogs including the auditor-general and the public protector have adjusted their positions on Heath.

They previously favoured his involvement, but subsequently seemed to adopt a view closer to government's;

The vehemence of the attacks on Heath ("an ungovernable blackmailer of the government who touts for work and colludes with the opposition").

Heath's unit antagonised the government in its abortive attempt in 1998 to sue the then health minister, Nkosazana Zuma, over Sarafina II. Although Heath angered government by saying corruption was rife, he also said its seeds were sown under the previous government, and he has given the ANC credit for setting up an independent anti-corruption unit.

Heath showed want of judgment in seeking a job reference from Nelson Mandela in the midst of the current controversy. The attacks nevertheless seem disproportionate;

The fact that the deputy president, Jacob Zuma, is now attacking an investigation he previously defended. He has also widened the attack beyond Heath. In a 12-page letter to Gavin Woods, chairman of the committee, Zuma repeatedly claimed that the committee had "stated" that "our government, foreign governments and the prime contractors, major international companies, are prone to corruption and dishonesty".

The committee did not say this. It suggested that SA might have been exploited by malpractices in the international arms industry. This implies the country might have been suckered, not that its government is crooked;

The reaction of the president himself. Inter alia, he contrived to suggest to the public on television that two senior counsel had said the opposite of what they actually said. He failed to acknowledge that he made a mistake in accusing Heath of withholding from him two "organograms" that were not part of the judge's "evidence", but the jottings of a journalist. Frequently, in fact, government has blurred the distinction between allegations made in newspaper reports and questions raised by the committee and the auditor-general;

The incorrect interpretations of the constitutional court's November judgment about Heath by the president and deputy president.

The top two people in the country thus tried to persuade the nation that its highest court said things it did not say;

Government's eagerness for evidence to be handed over. In due course, if the investigation uncovers evidence of wrongdoing, it would have to be given to the national director of public prosecutions for a decision on prosecution. However, matters have not reached that stage yet. The executive branch of government is thus interfering at a very early stage in an investigation in which it may eventually stand accused;

Attempts to undermine Woods personally. Following the adoption of his committee's report by Parliament, he wrote to Mbeki to "respectfully ask" for a proclamation to enable the Heath unit to join the probe.

This has been portrayed as if Woods was acting ultra vires and was guilty of a virtual abuse of power; and

The lack of proportion between government's reaction and what both reports said. Government seems to be implying it has been falsely accused of crimes by people who not only flout the constitution, but also refuse to produce the evidence.

Not since Mbeki spoke on the causes of AIDS has there been as much public criticism, especially by the media, of his government. Whatever harm the president's views on AIDS might have done to his or the country's reputation, or to the fight against the disease, there was at least no threat to the institutions of democratic governance.

In the arms controversy, however, institutions with vital roles as public watchdogs have been put under political pressure or interfered with.

It is not clear why this has happened. Has government simply allowed animus against Heath to cloud its judgment? Does it fear that corruption will be uncovered? Does the president genuinely believe that the committee and the auditor-general are part of a conspiracy against his government?

Whatever the answers, the controversy over Heath has served as a smokescreen for a wider attack on the accountability of the executive to Parliament and, through Parliament, to the public. A vital component of the democratic process has thus been undermined. 

With acknowledgement to Kane Berman and Business Day.