Cape Town - The South African media and public should be asking certain questions over the current government arms deals if they don't want to see the same bad mistakes of the Information scandal being repeated, said Noseweek editor Martin Welz on Wednesday.

Speaking at the Cape Town Press Club, Welz said, while the media and public delighted in stories over Connie Mulder and Eschel Rhoodie and a R60 million scandal in the 1970s, they failed to see the real issue.

This issue was: given that the R60 million used for spreading information had come from the defence budget, how much more money had there been in this budget, and for what ends had it been used? But those questions were never asked.

Welz claimed the focus on the Information scandal had enabled the government of the time to spend at least R60 billion on arms for the defence force - a huge contributing factor to South Africa's current debt burden.

In addition, the attention the Info scandal attracted resulted in a transfer of power from the caucuses and the police force under John Vorster to the securocrats and the defence force under PW Botha, with consequences that are now history.

Welz claims that the current arms procurement transaction should be approached with the same question: what are the reasons behind it, since the size of the deal is not justified by South Africa's present requirements.

Because of this he had made a list of the people involved in the respective phases of the transaction. This is where the organograms originated which had so enraged former president Nelson Mandela that he relinquished his role as patron of the Heath unit, Welz said.

Attempts to exclude Judge Willem Heath from the probe had been immediately successful after that event.

Welz claimed there were really only three reasons for South Africa to procure arms: someone was on the point of attacking the country; South Africa planned to invade another country; or the defence force needed to maintain its equipment since when it deteriorated, repairs were complicated and very expensive.

With the first option being highly unlikely, Welz claimed it was incumbent on President Thabo Mbeki to state whether "he wanted to be a Napoleon". Otherwise, maintaining the defence force seemed the most likely possibility.

If this proved to be the case, Welz said, one could ask the question why such huge amounts of money were required, while also taking into account recent statements by Laurie Nathan, executive director of the Centre for Conflict Solutions and also a member of the Cameron Commission which initially probed the arms trade.

Nathan recently said that two of the commission's recommendations had been that the defence budget should not be increased, and that arms deals should be approved by Parliament. Nothing came of these recommendations.

Other questions that needed to be asked, Welz noted, included the role of motor manufacturer Daimler Chrysler in the arms issue, and the ANC's and other leading politicians' interests in the events, particularly the role of Chippy Shaik, procurement chief for the defence ministry.

Welz asked why President Thabo Mbeki had rejected the purchase of Spanish ships, which would have been adequate for local purposes, while opting for German frigates, at three times the price, and being far too sophisticated for local requirements.  

With acknowledgment to Adrian Lackey, Die Burger and News24.