Cape Town. A history of intervention by the executive in the affairs of Parliament's public accounts committee and the ensuing political infighting that paralysed its activities were the main reasons given by its former chairman Gavin Woods for his resignation.

Woods, who became chairman of the committee in July 1999, has documented in detail how the work of the committee became increasingly compromised by political intervention after it decided late in 2000 to launch a probe into the R53bn arms programme, the largest single item of public spending by the democratic government.

These interventions led to the fatal collapse of the nonpartisanship that previously characterised the committee's work, and led to its increasing inability to perform its oversight function. Increasingly, according to Woods, the African National Congress (ANC) majority on the committee used its numbers to ensure that party's short-term political interests predominated.

"It was these interventions and the conflict they cause which in the main led to the discordant relations and dysfunction within the committee. This in turn led to the committee performing significantly worse than any other year since 1994," Woods said

In an extensive overview of the processes under way after the committee launched the arms probe, Woods described the way in which it "was prevented from ensuring that the public had its serious concerns over the strategic defence packages properly looked into". He listed a series of interventions, the sole purpose of which was to discourage the arms investigation from achieving the scope and depth originally envisaged by the committee.

Woods categorises the interventions as follows: interventions that led to the exclusion of the Heath special investigating unit, so compromising the arms probe; interventions by cabinet ministers and senior ANC office bearers that affected the committee's work; and interventions that affected the committee's relationship with the investigation team and its interrogation of the team's report.

He described intense political pressure exerted on ANC committee members to discourage the committee's involvement in the arms probe, and how the ANC packed the committee with loyalists to ensure its will held sway. Attempts were made to intimidate members into dealing with the arms deal as an internal ANC matter rather than a public parliamentary one.

Woods believed that the committee fell far short of meeting its obligations on the arms programme. It had failed to properly investigate it and to produce a comprehensive final report on the probe by the joint investigating team. He found the team had produced "significantly less relevant and less conclusive findings than was required", and had done a substandard, shallow job. "The quality of the joint investigating team investigation is generally poor and superficial. It ignored almost every issue/concern the (standing committee on public accounts) had raised.

"The (team did) not point out a single serious failing which was to the disadvantage of the state. No seriously damning or embarrassing findings. Not one shortcoming serious enough to cause sanction or disciplinary action for a single official or criticism for any politician."

Woods was highly critical of the report's inadequacies and the manner in which Parliament abdicated its responsibilities to investigate the deal, saying it had failed the people of SA.

After several failed attempts to get the committee back on track last year, Woods wrote a letter to committee members and to the chief whips of all the parties a few weeks ago asking for their support in his initiative to restore the committee to health. He appealed for the committee to be depoliticised, and for it to return to its nonpartisan method of operating.

He also called on each party to consider who they deployed to the committee in terms of their ability and political attitude.

He claimed that the ANC and the New National Party failed to respond to his appeal.

Last week an in camera committee meeting was held in an attempt to thrash out the problems. Woods said the meeting was "disappointing" as the ANC had spent most of the time "voicing criticism of me in one way or another. The issues raised in my letter were by and large dismissed or rejected with little earnest discussion."

The ANC, Woods claimed, had dismissed the view that the committee was unduly politicised, and rejected his request for it to be restructured to prevent the ANC from having a monopoly control over its work by controlling its subcommittees.

Woods said some ANC members stated that the ANC "would always put the party first, and its involvement in (the committee) would always be directed by the party".

"It was then suggested that as the ANC stood for good public finance management, the imposition of its position on the committee would not constitute a problem."

The ANC also rejected Woods' request that the committee work more than two days a week, his request for dedicated training programmes and his assertion that his authority was undermined. Woods said that as committee chairman his "leadership initiatives are generally blocked, rejected or ignored".

However, ANC public accounts spokesman Vincent Smith denied that the ANC had failed to respond to Woods' comments. The party, he said, failed to understand what politicising the committee meant, saw no reason to change the committee structure, and because of constituency commitments could not agree to work in recesses.