MONDAY, the first day of the public hearings into the multibillion-rand arms deal, was an unsettling occasion. Very few people, if any, seemed to know what was going to happen. The office of Public Protector Selby Baqwa, the lead agency among the three in charge of the affair, was not saying.

When he emerged, well after the appointed 10 o' clock starting time, he wasted no time in giving the impression that the hearings deserved all the urgency in the world. Parliament wanted a report on the hearings before the end of July, he said.

This "public phase" of the investigation was "not a public hearing in the accusational" sense, Baqwa said. It would not interfere with continuing criminal investigations into the acquisition, but would rather "complement" them.

The defence department had a different concern it wanted a postponement. Its counsel, Michael Kuper, said he had had little time to put together a legal team and make adequate preparations.

He listed his reasons: his team had to obtain details of process; get a list of people who were going to testify; advise them of their rights; and check whether there was a conflict of interest between the department and witnesses. It also had to examine the possibility of civil actions. In the end, Kuper said, the members of his team were simply unable to discharge their duties.

The rest is history: despite the urgency, Baqwa granted the postponement.

How the department struggled to locate people, as Kuper would have us believe, is hard to believe. Equally hard to believe is how the department, central as it is to the matter, had not followed all the processes around the arms inquiry, particularly events in Parliament.

A competent department would at least have been in touch with people who participated in the acquisition programme to verify information and ensure everything was above reproach.

Alternatively, if these were legitimate concerns, how could the convenors of the inquiry have failed to give the department adequate notice?

More alarming was what appeared to be Baqwa's position on permitting television coverage of the hearing utterances that lend strength to sceptical questions raised by political analysts and the parliamentary opposition about his role in the inquiry.

"Arms investigations are closed all over the world for obvious reasons ... there are people who are unhappy with the way we've gone so far."

Any giver or taker of kickbacks would, of course, be unhappy with an open process. But dirt-poor South Africans might be just as unhappy when their government spends billions on arms.

Did it not occur to the public protector that arms purchases are shrouded in secrecy precisely because the actions of some of those involved do not bear scrutiny?

This goes to the very heart of the investigation, especially the so-called "public" aspect of it. Who is the public protector protecting?

Baqwa's response to representations from E.tv and the SABC to allow them to broadcast the hearing was to insist that the public's and the broadcaster's rights here "are not absolute". Such matters have to be decided on their own merit, case by case.

The public, he said, would be informed "as far as possible" and a report of the hearings would be a public document.

One argument against a broadcast relates to the safety of witnesses. But does this justify the exclusion of the electronic media? The print media might also create security problems.

The public protector should be entitled to set restrictions on reporting in particular circumstances, especially where witnesses' safety might be at risk. But this should be done only in specific circumstances where necessary.

Baqwa had a further objection. Television, he said, had an inhibiting effect on some and an exhilarating one on others. The presence of the print media was less dramatic in its effect.

Alluding to the "OJ Simpson syndrome", he argued that the courtroom could be turned into a stage where people could act and grandstand. "Don't you think that's something one needs to guard against?" he asked the public broadcaster.

Again, however, the print media is capable of reporting in a sensationalist way with a similar effect.

Notably, Baqwa and his assistants pursued a vigorous line of questioning with the broadcasters. The same could not be said of his encounter with the defence department.

There is no evidence that Baqwa is part of a conspiracy to stage-manage the process so that it yields a particular outcome. But it is equally difficult to see how the views he expressed on Monday enhance the investigation's credibility.

Baqwa must just do the right thing, speedily and openly.

Government and the African National Congress have shown a significant inability to handle this matter properly.

In a country with so little but so much to do, arguments that international conventions hold that such matters do not normally come under scrutiny are irrelevant and in some cases plain wrong.  

With acknowledgement to Vuyo Mvoko and Business Day.