With Promotion of Access to Information Act as much information as possible must be available on request.

There is every reason for FirstRand to release to the public its Deloitte & Touche report on irregularities allegedly committed by Mac Maharaj.

The Maharaj saga emerged publicly in February with banner headlines in the Sunday Times pro claiming that Mac Maharaj, highest-paid nonexecutive director of the FirstRand banking group and former transport minister, received more than R500000 from Schabir Shaik, who was implicated in the arms deal in 1998.

Soon after deposits were allegedly made, Shaik's Nkobi Holdings was part of the consortium that won the lucrative contract to upgrade the N3 toll road between Johannesburg and Durban, a deal funded partly by FirstRand subsidiary Rand Merchant Bank (RMB).

After the news broke, FirstRand vetoed Maharaj's offer to quit and opted for its own investigation of the allegations. Last week, five months later, the report prepared jointly by auditing firm Deloitte & Touche and attorneys Hofmeyr Herbstein & Ginwala was completed.

Maharaj was asked to respond to the report, which he promptly did. Now the bank says it will make an announcement on Maharaj next week.

But chairman GT Ferreira says the full report will not be released for two reasons. "Firstly, it contains some information about individuals and organisations that is not in the public domain. Secondly, the Scorpions are still undertaking their own investigation and we don't think it would be appropriate to make it available in its entirety," he says.

These may be valid arguments, but there are equally compelling counterarguments. On the first issue, the matter has already been thrust into the public domain by the biggest newspaper in the country.

And, as we have witnessed with other such scandals, debate will rage on in the press whether or not the report is released resplendent with all the innuendo and dark suspicion that now dogs Deputy President Jacob Zuma.

FirstRand's report will probably be a sober and rational contribution to the debate, providing a context in which the public can assess the veracity of charges against Maharaj.

On the issue of involving other parties, some would say that if they were party to this mess then transparency dictates that they be named. If not, one could excise or "black out" references to these third parties. One could, in fact, do the same to any "sensitive" areas that may jeopardise the Scorpions investigation.

A key player who supports a public release of the report is Shaik himself. "I think this ought to be made public simply because the whole scenario has already been made public and the facts should now be known," he says.

The way Shaik explains it, he paid R350000 to Maharaj's wife, Zarina, for her services as a consultant to his company over four years, not R500000 as alleged. Shaik also says he paid Maharaj's R15000 Disneyland bill, but this was because his US business partner asked him to, and he did not want to jeopardise this budding business relationship. Shaik says he is still under the impression that Maharaj paid the US hotel bill, and this hotel bill was probably paid twice.

"I'm a businessman, and my name has been linked to that already in public," he says. Even if the FirstRand report is not made public, he says, he will make his version public.

Shaik says that although he has not seen the Deloitte & Touche report, he fully expects Maharaj's name to be cleared along with his own.

"Undoubtedly the report will exonerate Mac. If it doesn't clear him I would have serious concerns about it," he says.

This underlines an important argument in favour of the public release of the report: anything less than full disclosure will foster rumours and speculation about hidden agendas and the "real findings".

He has a point. The decision not to release the KPMG section seven bank report on Saambou's demise has given rise to dark muttering about plots and double-agendas.

University of Witwatersrand professor of journalism Anton Harber says that FirstRand "will never be able to clear the air for either Mac (Maharaj) or themselves unless they air this fully in public".

Richard Calland, head of Idasa's Right to Know programme, agrees, saying it is "very important" for the Deloitte & Touche report to be released. "There certainly is public interest in this matter considering Maharaj's position as the (former) minister of transport, so that would be an argument in favour of releasing it."

But he points out that, because FirstRand's investigation gave rise to the report, releasing it will be a strategic choice for the banking group to make unless someone requests its release under the Promotion of Access to Information Act.

Calland reiterates Harber's point that when information of this nature is kept hidden it tends to encourage more rumour and speculation, which is already running rampant in the Maharaj case.

The Freedom of Expression Institute believes that to withhold the report would go "against the grain of transparency". Media policy research head at the institute, Console Tleane, says that while the institute respects FirstRand's view that the release of the report might affect the Scorpions' investigation, the "public interest should supersede any other interest that might be at play in this case".

"The Maharaj case has now taken the form of a public-interest matter in the sense that it allegedly involves instances of possible use of public funds. For this reason, the case for making the public aware of what was found out, even if investigations are still to be concluded, is very strong," Tleane says.

FirstRand has said the report also dealt with the group's role in the N3 toll road award. The group was one of the lead financiers to the consortium that included Shaik's company. In addition, the head of the National Roads Agency, which helped decide the contract, was Barry Adams, also a FirstRand nonexecutive director.

While indications are that FirstRand was found not to have an untenable conflict of interest, a public release of the report would cut short any speculation on this front.

So what about the need to protect "third parties" named in the report?

Even though a strong case can be made for naming parties to the saga, a decision to keep their identities secret would not be an insurmountable hurdle. As Harber notes: "There may be a need to protect third parties, but there are ways to make this public while doing that."

One imagines FW de Klerk and big black patches covering words in the truth commission's report. While not ideal, this kind of compromise would allow some kind of public transparency that would muffle often misplaced speculation.

Importantly, the new Promotion of Access to Information Act makes a distinction between information that can be exempt from public release and information that can be revealed.

So if FirstRand was to get a request to release the document, and decide that certain of the details qualify for an exemption, it still has a duty to release as much information as possible setting the stage for at least certain parts of the report to be aired.

Shaik says: "The truth must come out. For a million and one reasons, the truth must come out."

What is clear is that something will indeed come out be it scurrilous speculation or the report itself.

FirstRand has an opportunity to decide where this axe will fall.

Rose is financial services correspondent.

With acknowledgements to Rob Rose and the Business Day.