Government's controversial arms purchase decision made some years ago is proving more costly than the billions actually budgeted.

The farcical outcome of the Scorpions' investigation into the alleged role of Deputy President Jacob Zuma has probably undermined the standing of the national directorate of public prosecutions more than it has that of Zuma. Nor is the directorate the only public institution to have been damaged by government's hostility to questions about the arms deal.

Last week's cabinet promise not to interfere with the Zuma investigation was accompanied by a claim that government "has not in the past interfered with investigations by security agencies". This is disingenuous. Government interfered with the arms investigation right from the start.

Nor should the focus on Zuma be allowed to obscure the fact that he was only one of several government heavyweights who were infuriated when the standing committee on public accounts (Scopa) raised questions about the deal more than two-and-a-half years ago. It is not surprising either that the auditorgeneral has again found himself on the defensive over the findings of the joint investigating team of which he was a member after government torpedoed Scopa.

Tony Yengeni has had to resign from Parliament after admitting to fraud, but this was not before he had used his position as chief whip of the African National Congress (ANC) to subject Scopa to party discipline and so emasculate it. He is unlikely to have taken so decisive a step without the sanction of the party leadership. As for Frene Ginwala, the speaker of Parliament, the best that can be said of her role in this affair is that she failed to defend a vitally important parliamentary committee from attack by both the ruling party and the executive branch of government.

It was back in January 2001 that Zuma fired off a 12-page letter attacking Gavin Woods, then chairman of Scopa, after Scopa had proposed an investigation involving the auditor-general, the investigating directorate of serious economic offences, the public protector, and the Heath unit. On the same day that Zuma attacked Woods, President Thabo Mbeki went on television and accused Judge Willem Heath of withholding evidence in the form of two "organograms" that turned out to be journalistic jottings. Mbeki also misled the nation about legal advice given him as to who should conduct the arms probe.

Government not only excluded Heath from the investigation, but subjected him to personal attack. More recently, of course, Mbeki has again labelled critics of the arms deal racists.

Though Business Day said in a recent editorial that the attacks on Scopa and Heath had been led by Zuma, Mbeki was heavily involved right from the start. His office may even have been involved as early as November 2000 if claims of a meeting at Tuynhuys of ANC members of Scopa at that time are true.

Business Day's Tim Cohen wrote in July that the arms deal had been "thoroughly investigated" by the auditor-general, the public protector, and the national prosecuting authority. But this was strongly disputed by Woods as soon as the report by this joint investigating team was published.

Woods labelled their investigation "poor and superficial". He accused them of effectively condoning "well over 50 instances of noncompliance".

None of these charges has been properly answered beyond the attempt by the auditor-general to shrug them off as "factually incorrect". And in an editorial last week, Business Day suggested that the team had done "shoddy work".

The destruction of Scopa, abuse of Heath, and the labelling of critics as racists happened in public. What happened behind the scenes?

Mbeki chaired the cabinet subcommittee that decided on the arms purchases. His extraordinarily heavy-handed public interventions in the proposed investigations very early on are the most significant aspect of this whole affair.

Kane-Berman is the CE of the South African Institute of Race Relations.

With acknowledgement to Kane-Berman and the Business Day.