Anti-arms grouping Economists Allied for Arms Reduction (Ecaar) has accused the government of being in contempt of both the court and the Constitution after it failed to provide Ecaar with documents relating to the arms deal, despite a court order to do so.

Ecaar South Africa has vowed to continue with its litigation against the government for cancellation of the controversial multi-billion rand arms deal, on the grounds that it lacks legal authority and is unconstitutional.

Amid growing concern from civil society over the arms deal, Ecaar applied to the Cape High Court, on behalf of "all poor South Africans" for the cancellation of the deal. The organisation has projected the final cost of the deal to be about R114 billion.

Ecaar's SA chairman anti-arms activist Terry Crawford-Browne lodged the legal action in November 2001, listing President Thabo Mbeki and Finance Minister Trevor Manuel as the first and second respondents.

The campaign, which is gaining momentum among NGOs and members of civil society nationwide, revolves around the government's failure to heed the plight of poverty-stricken citizens. It also alleges that the offset job creation promises from foreign arms contractors are "scams".

On March 26, the Cape High Court ordered Mbeki, Manuel and the government to produce certain documents crucial to Ecaar's case within 10 court days. These documents contain the advice of the International Offers Negotiating Team and the Financial Working Group.

However, the government failed to produce the documents, issuing an affidavit on Thursday saying that the documents are confidential and asking for them to be limited to Ecaar's legal advisers.

Crawford-Browne cited the pertinent paragraphs of the affidavit, signed by Finance director-general Maria Ramos on behalf of Manuel, which state that the documents are "confidential, and remain so".

"Such advice and the information referred to therein is commercially sensitive to the government and to (Manuel) and cannot, in (his) opinion be generally circulated or made public without compromising the ability of the government, and in particular, the National Treasury, to negotiate favourable international funding arrangements.

"Moreover, the said advice contains reference to underlying procurement transactions, which are on their own account likewise confidential," the affidavit reads.

Crawford-Browne said yesterday he believes the government response constitutes "both contempt of court and also of the Constitution, Section 32 regarding access to information and of Section 34 regarding access to courts and the right to 'a fair public hearing before a court'.

"We would also point out that in our discovery application filed on July 5, 2002, we offered the government an opportunity to provide these documents on a confidential arrangement. That offer was rejected

"We subsequently obtained over the Internet the British/South African government loan agreements signed by the minister of Finance in January 2000 that gave effect to the arms deal.

"These documents are so revealing of the government's recklessness in signing the agreements that we are not surprised that it wishes to prevent that information from becoming public. The government's counsel on March 20 confirmed in the Cape High Court that the loan agreements we hold are authentic.

"Ecaar-SA and I intend to continue with the litigation for cancellation of the arms deal on the grounds that it both lacks legal authority and is unconstitutional," Crawford-Browne said.

With acknowledgements to Susan Segar and The Natal Witness.