Feisty and forthright , the chairman of the standing committee on public accounts has resigned, citing government interference. CHRIS BARRON asked him . . .

What is your financial background?

I've worked for big companies like Barclays Bank, Toyota and the Premier group as a financial manager and financial controller.

And academically?

I've a doctorate in economics and an MBA.

Hardly the amateur that certain Cabinet ministers have suggested?

I was in charge of the finances and accounting records for 18 companies at one stage, so I've had a lot of very practical, hard experience.

You said last year you'd only quit if pushed. Were you?

I've been pushed for eight or nine months. There were people willing me to leave.

Haven't you now done them a favour, and voters a disservice?

I believe I'm doing the ANC a favour. But I'm trying to do a favour for the accounts committee. I decided . . . to resign in a way that would draw attention to the problems and create a sense of urgency about fixing them.

Haven't you opened the way for a yes-man?

The political control being exercised, the degree to which I was marginalised, means that under my chairmanship it was 20% effective. Even with a yes-man that is likely to improve.

You said last year you were not the man to buckle. Have you buckled?

I don't think so. I had to build myself up to take this step, because I really didn't want to give up the position. I can expect a lot of political fallout, so I don't think I've run for safety.

Is your stepping down an admission that the accounts committee can no longer protect Parliament against the executive?

It's the lesson of what we've been through.

Has the government in effect bullied the most important oversight committee in Parliament into doing its bidding?

By all accounts it would appear that the executive had a lot of manipulative influence.

What does this say about the government's commitment to democracy?

The executive should still be respecting the separation of powers and the Constitution's requirement that it account to Parliament.

Is Parliament now just a rubber stamp?

I don't believe it has gone that far . . . but there are warning signs we need to address.

Were you surprised that the Speaker attacked you instead of supporting you?

It still leaves me stunned, even a year later.

It's her job to protect Parliament against the executive, isn't it?

Exactly. And if you look at the consequences of her actions, she did the exact opposite.

Why did you call the joint report into the arms deal "shallow" and "substandard"?

There were issues that (the accounts committee) was very concerned about which the report never addressed or didn't investigate in depth.

Would the report have looked substantially different if the Heath unit had been involved?

I believe it would have.

In barring the Heath unit, was the government trying to cover up?

It's not my position to say whether the decision to buy arms was correct, nor to say whether allegations of dishonesty in the deal are correct or not. My responsibility was to make sure we had a thorough investigation. Certainly the range of interventions that took place is enough to arouse suspicious minds.

Do you support the court action to cancel the arms deal?

If one was able to cancel the second and third tranches of the aeroplanes that are part of the deal and take that money (around R8-billion) and put it into combating Aids or creating jobs, I'd support that.

Why just that part?

Contractually, we're locked into the others.

And if the whole deal was cancelled?

The government would have to pay out huge sums in damages.