The Auditor-General Shauket Fakie has issued a statement concerning the alleged 'witch hunt' being conducted in his offices and within his operational teams, following a fairly regular flow of leaked information to the press over a number of months since the beginning of the arms deal joint investigation last year.

Fakie wishes to rebut the recent misleading inference in one weekly newspaper that seeking the source of leaks of confidential material to the press is a 'witch hunt'. It is necessary to explain, he has stated, why it is his responsibility to undertake such an investigation and that beyond this, he is not in any way involved in a mission to identify the original 'whistle-blowers'. This is beyond his remit and powers.

The issue of the media using leaked information is a sensitive one. Although the media have an important role reporting in the public interest, due care needs to be exercised when considering the errors and inaccuracies that can be reported when only one source, perhaps with an agenda of his or her own, may be the provider of the information. This has been clearly demonstrated, says Fakie, by the need for an investigation into how proven factual inaccuracies were recently presented in the media.

The story, 'Naval officer shielded by arms report changes' (Mail & Guardian 11-17 January 2002) clearly states that 'The M&G has learned that the original drafts were much tougher on him - they bluntly accused him of perjury and recommended he be charged". The Auditor-General wishes to point out that not one of the investigators' reports nor any of the draft reports accused Admiral Johnny Kamerman of perjury or recommended that he be charged. On the contrary, the draft report reflects that 'no evidence of corruption was found'.

An error of this seriousness can both damage the reputation of a newspaper for its failure to check its facts and the veracity of its sources, whilst also placing it in danger of being sued for loss of reputation and damages by the implicated individual.

A later story by the same reporter, printed in the same paper, edition of 15-21 March, entitled 'New twist in hunt for whistle-blowers' infers that Shauket Fakie has launched a new 'probe' into the original 'whistle-blowers. By so doing, the reporter writes, he may well grant the executive its wish' to uncover the original sources. Fakie wishes to make clear that no such agenda exists and that current interviews conducted by his team do not have that brief. He rejects the association being made that one investigation is being used to cover for another and may, by reported inference, even be at the behest of the executive. As mentioned above, such an investigation would be beyond the Auditor-General's remit and powers.

The importance of an ethical approach to the use of highly sensitive or untested information is itself demonstrated by the media's own ethical standards and protection of its sources. Such integrity runs parallel to the approach Fakie feels needs to be adopted by his own office in order to publicly reaffirm its commitment to protecting confidentiality and guarding integrity. It is precisely to safeguard such ethical principles that Fakie is currently conducting an internal investigation. By so doing, Fakie believes he ethically safeguards the public interest, the standing of his own office and his own public reputation. Indeed Fakie himself was the first to undergo the internal probe by his two appointed investigators. This is because he is committed to personally demonstrating his office's commitments to uncover the sources that seek to damage the integrity of a constitutional institution. Further, leaks can also harm the rightful expectation of a 'whistle-blower', on exposing corruption or malpractice, that he or she will be protected by the office's confidentiality clauses and own code of ethics.

The internal investigative experience includes voluntarily signing an affidavit that the signatory was not the informant having phone accounts examined and taking a lie detector test (still to come). A number of people involved in the joint investigation team are currently undergoing the same exercise. They have been broadly identified by the nature of the information that was leaked and in terms of their responsibility areas in the investigative phase and in the writing of the report.

There is, then, an important distinction to be made between whistle blowing for the public good and leaking information that breaches confidentiality clauses and codes of ethics. Some media seek to present the idea that the Auditor-General and his team are trying to silence people, or conducting a 'which hunt'. Credence is thus being given to the notion that there is some element of serious fraud or criminal activity that the government and the investigative agencies wish to obscure or hide. Thus any source with any kind of evidence to back this notion, is given credibility over and above the credibility afforded to the findings of the investigating team, the requirements and parameters of their mandate and their final Arms Procurement Report to Parliament. Indeed, Fakie is firm in his conviction that the protection of integrity is a matter of state importance and is a principle on which he will not compromise.

Enquiries : 

Shauket Fakie
Auditor-General
082 405 3700

Lynette Groenewald 
Manager: Communications
Tel: (012) 426-8234
Fax: (012) 426-8293
Cellular number: 082 465 0576