Opposition parties have slammed key findings of the landmark probe into the controversial arms deal, saying that its findings, expected to clear the Government of any wrongdoing in the R66-billion deal, smack of a whitewash.

Impeccable sources said the three agencies investigating the arms procurement deal - the Public Protector, the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions and the Auditor General - had found after months of investigations that no evidence existed of unlawful or improper conduct on the part of the government.

Investigators from all three agencies had found that some government officials had acted improperly.

The cabinet and the president had been cleared of any wrongdoing, the sources said.

The Government has been fiercely criticised for the rocketing costs of the arms deal, which rose from about R30-billion to more than R60-billion over a year, mostly due to currency fluctuations, but the probe has found that the government was correctly informed of costs and that it had acted appropriately.

According to independent sources, the government had, in the main, acted correctly in the main contracts of the arms deal, but had failed to keep its finger on "rotten" dealings in sub-contracts of the deal involving many local contractors.

DP chief whip Douglas Gibson said the expected findings of the probe sounded "suspiciously like a whitewash".

"I wonder if the people of South Africa will be satisfied - they were expecting heads to roll," said Gibson.

He said defence department acquisitions chief Chippy Shaik would be the "sacrificial lamb" in the saga, but it remained to be seen whether former Defence Minister Joe Modise "will pay the price".

It appeared that Shaik would be the main scapegoat and has been "hung out to dry", according to military insiders.

The tri-agency investigative team had found that he failed to properly recuse himself from a section of the deal involving his brother Shabir Shaik.

The team also found that Shaik had not obtained the necessary military security clearance.

Parliament's public accounts committee chairman Gavin Woods has complained repeatedly about executive interference and has questioned why the report was screened by the executive before coming to parliament.

With acknowledgement to the Daily News and Independent Online.