Cape Town - The joint investigating team's (JIT) probe into the arms deal was sub-standard and had contributed to justice not having been done, according to Dr Gavin Woods, the outgoing chair of parliament's watchdog public accounts (Scopa) committee.

In a 17-page appraisal of the JIT's controversial report to parliament, he said Scopa, in its 14th report adopted by the National Assembly in 2000, had called for an in-depth investigation into key aspects of the strategic defence package (SDP).

This included a probe into the substantial increase in the overall cost of the arms package.

However, the JIT had failed to investigate and report on this critical issue, excusing itself by saying that ultimately what the country could or could not afford was one of political choice.

"This is most regrettable coming from those who should be promoting public accountability and not dismissing it," Woods said.

On the offsets and industrial participation programmes, the JIT had simply discarded 10 of the 14 concerns Scopa wanted investigated.

"And none of the four it looked at were satisfactorily addressed."

Woods said it would also have been appropriate to question whether cabinet and its sub-committee on the arms deal had acted responsibly and competently.

"This is especially so given the JIT's frequent and unsolicited defence of their involvement."

Scopa had in its 14th report stated that the cabinet had been put in a position by the affordability team to know and understand the full financing and economic implications of the SDP.

"Given the evidence produced in the detail of the JIT report (but omitted from its findings)... the cabinet and the cabinet committee in particular did not act with sufficient responsibility when applying their minds to the SDP processes and when making their decisions.

"Thus, the public has been let down by the way in which this single biggest expenditure of the South African government was decided upon."

Woods questioned whether it was not the subsequent awareness by the cabinet sub-committee's members of their failings that had caused the disapproval and ridicule of Scopa's proposed investigation into the SDP.

"A suspicious mind may wonder about the particular interventions which so inhibited further investigative efforts," he said.

The quality of the JIT investigation was generally poor and superficial, and given the secrecy, politics and controversy by which it was surrounded, an inevitable scepticism prevailed, Woods said.

"For Scopa, through its majority produced and majority voted report, to express gratitude and confidence in the JIT when it ignored almost every issue/concern Scopa had raised and which Parliament had adopted, will remain a blight on the oversight record of Scopa for ever."

Woods said the high recurrence in the JIT report of shortcomings, which were discovered but then dropped or explained away as having insufficient influence, bordered on the absurd.

"The JIT in almost every instance says that despite all that was wrong, there were no seriously negative consequences arising from any of the decisions made."

With the JIT having taken the position it did and parliament having abdicated its investigative responsibility, justice had not been done.

"Parliament has failed the people," Woods said.