Pretoria - The three agencies tasked with investigating South Africa's controversial R43 billion arms deal have long been probing allegations that ANC chief whip Tony Yengeni had accepted a bribe in the form of a luxury 4x4 vehicle.  

Recent media reports on the matter actually jeopardised the official investigation into the Yengeni matter, said National Director of Public Prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka on Thursday. 

After the publication of the stories about Yengeni, people and entities formerly willing to co-operate freely became reluctant to do so, Ngcuka said.  

That meant the investigators would have to resort to their powers to summon these people to obtain the information.  

Baqwa said information from certain institutions, while not exactly doctored, were "carefully crafted to give a certain picture".  

Institutions earlier willing to freely supply information now referred the investigators to their head offices, thereby delaying the process considerably. He said some matters under scrutiny in the arms deal may end up in court.  

"At this stage it looks like there may be some criminal prosecutions."  

It was not yet clear who the accused in these cases would be, he told editors and reporters in Pretoria. Asked whether his expectation of some matters ending up in a criminal court meant something was amiss with the arms deal, Ngcuka said: "At this stage I am not in a position to say that all is not well with the deal."  

The probe is being conducted at the request of Parliament's watchdog public accounts committee and involves Ngcuka's office and those of Auditor-General Shauket Fakie and Public Protector Selby Baqwa.  

Ngcuka said most of the investigating work into the allegations of wrongdoing regarding the arms package would hopefully be completed around July, with some outstanding matters to be finalised in the months thereafter.  

The three agencies would submit a report on their investigation to Parliament. There were three broad categories of alleged wrongdoing, Ngcuka said. The first dealt with conflicts of interest, the second with bribes and the third with procedural irregularities in the deal.

The key aspect was to show that bribes and conflict of interest issues had impacted on the procurement process, he said.  

However, any bribery discovered in the investigation would be prosecuted, even it was not linked to the weapons package.  

Fakie said primary as well as subcontracts in the deal were being investigated. The investigators had a policy not to confirm or refute whom they were probing, he said. This was despite some names being mentioned of people against whom there were no allegations at present.  

In the course of the investigation so far, the bank statements of 24 individuals and entities, and the statutory reports of 68 entities had been obtained, Ngcuka said.  

"We have also interviewed individuals and summonsed documents from auditing firms."  

Different teams, each comprising representatives from all three agencies, were conducting the investigation. This was aimed at covering all perspectives and to eliminate cover-ups as far as possible.  

A total of 30 people - staff members from the three agencies and some from private auditing firms - were conducting the probe. One aspect of the task had been contracted out to a private auditing firm. Ngcuka ruled out the possibility of the investigators being bribed, adding: "You can't buy me; you will have to buy all 30 people."  

Asked if the three institutions had sufficient powers to carry out the investigation, Ngcuka said: "At this stage we feel comfortable with the power we have."  

Earlier it was suggested that the absence of the Heath special investigating unit would water down the arms deal probe.  

Baqwa called on the media to share any information they had on alleged wrongdoing with the investigators before publishing it. "We are partners in the watchdog function."  

The element of surprise was vital in investigations of this nature, Baqwa said.  

The meeting started with a difference of opinion between journalists and the three agency heads on whether or not part of the briefing should not be for publication.  

Several editors objected to the notion of some information remaining confidential, saying this would restrain them from publishing anything along similar lines obtained from other sources.  

It was eventually agreed that the three officials would withhold information they regarded as sensitive. 

With acknowledgment to Sapa and News24.