Like the ghost of Christmas past, allegations surrounding the arms deal are haunting the country again.

Just over a year ago the Joint Investigative Team (JIT) exonerated the government from all "improper or unlawful conduct" relating to the multi-billion rand arms deal. It also found that no blame could be ascribed to either the president or the ministers in his cabinet for areas in which the deal deviated from normal procurement practice.

Many dismissed the JIT report as a "whitewash". However, despite the shortcomings of the report, it would be too simplistic to treat it as a mere rubber stamp or "whitewash".

In its submission made to parliament in December 2001, the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (Idasa) said that while there were certain elements of the investigation which were not dealt with as thoroughly as they perhaps should have been, the report remained credible and comprehensive.

Institutions are only ever as strong as their greatest political crisis and the arms deal controversy indeed tested, and continues to test, the efficacy of South Africa's young institutions - the public protector's office, the auditor-general's office and most importantly perhaps, parliament's standing committee on public accounts (Scopa).

Despite the findings, the arms deal was never simply going to disappear. It is therefore unsurprising that allegations are surfacing yet again, albeit of a slightly different nature.

Apart from too many unanswered questions, the report left a veritable "to do" list in its wake. It left parliament with a major role to play in exercising oversight over the progress of the deal - the basis on which the deal was "sold" to the public was that jobs would be created as part of the off-sets to the various contracts entered into. It left parliament with the responsibility to continuously oversee the deal through its various committees.

For good, effective governance, oversight needs to be sustained, with parliament engaging in a continuous dialogue over the different areas of the deal. Committees reported to parliament earlier this year with varying degrees of detail. Many questions, especially around cost and off-sets were left unanswered. There appeared to be an over-zealous attempt to consign the investigation to history and close the book on it.

For as long as the deal continues its 12-year lifespan questions will persist, and oversight must continue. Parliament constantly needs to be asking whether South Africans are getting their money's worth.

The JIT, in addition, recommended that a post-employment code of conduct be drafted by parliament for members of the executive in an attempt to prevent a conflict of interest situation developing once members of the executive had completed their term of office. It is believed that the ethics committee of parliament will be looking at this in 2003.

It was noted, too, in the JIT report that the criminal aspects of the investigation would be dealt with by the national directorate of public prosecutions - making it impossible to declare the JIT report the end of the process.

Two nagging issues remained. One was the cost of the deal.

No conclusions were drawn by the JIT when government persisted with the deal, save to say that the choice was a "political one".

In this regard the government remains accountable for such a choice and the onus again rests on parliament to ensure that the benefits of the deal are realised.

The onus also rests on civil society to hold the government accountable for its political choices, and the effect such large amounts of spending could have on future levels of spending which ought to be aimed at eradicating socio-economic inequality.

But back to the present. One of the key findings of the JIT report was that there was a conflict of interest with regard to the role played by the department of defence chief of acquisitions, "Chippy" Shaik, by virtue of his brother Schabir's interests in the Thomson Group - now Thales - and African Defence Systems, the group's local subsidiary.

Pursuant to this, Shaik was disciplined and his brother Schabir is the subject of investigation by the Scorpions. At the time there were vague rumours about Shaik's relationship with Deputy President Jacob Zuma, and that Zuma's involvement in the arms deal may have been untoward.

Zuma's friendship with Schabir Shaik is now also under scrutiny. Zuma's response has, predictably, been to deny all allegations of a conflict of interest or improper conduct.

Suspicion has been raised because of the timing of the allegations - days before the ANC conference. There are many who believe that the allegations are simply a means of discrediting Zuma.

This could be a real possibility.

So in the absence of anything more than the rumour-mill to go by, an investigation urgently needs to take place to deal with such allegations. In politics, it is more often than not perception of wrong-doing which causes the most harm.

The arms deal was the Achilles heel of the ruling party for much of 2001. One way of ensuring that 2003 is not an annus horribilis is to deal with the Zuma allegations swiftly and in a manner which is open and transparent, and which gives the public confidence in the outcome of any investigation which may take place.

The public has the right to know and the right to much more than an anodyne denial. As the brief history of the arms deal has shown, if allegations of corruption are not dealt with swiftly, they have a habit of doing the rounds again.

With acknowledgements to Judith February and Cape Times.