After the establishment of the Hefer commission of inquiry was announced, Deputy President Jacob Zuma indicated he would be willing to testify if called on to do so. The African National Congress said last week that there was no basis for Zuma to appear before the commission.

The ANC's intervention is uncalled for and not germane to the central question that the commission is required to answer. The commission has been tasked with answering the question of whether the director of the National Prosecuting Authority, Bulelani Ngcuka, was an apartheid spy. The commission is therefore free, and indeed required, to seek information from all the potential parties that might allow it to reach a definitive conclusion. Thus the only real question before the commission is whether Zuma might have information that could assist it in finding out the truth to the question as posed.

Zuma was the head of ANC intelligence in the latter part of the 1980s and the early part of the 1990s. This is exactly the period that the spy is alleged to have been operating. It is also the period in which Operation Bible, the ANC's attempt to discover spies within its organisation, was launched.

It seems impossible that Zuma would not have knowledge of why Operation Bible was established and what it discovered. Therefore, it seems reasonable to suspect that he may be able to shed light on the allegations. At the very least, he would be able to explain the circumstances that surrounded the establishment of the operation. Hence, given his likely knowledge, it seems perfectly reasonable that the commission should call on him to testify.

The ANC argues that all its records with respect to matters of intelligence were handed over to the relevant state institutions during the period of transition. It says it has no records relevant to the brief of the Hefer commission.

It then concludes that as a result there is no basis for Zuma to testify. But this does not follow at all.

The issue is not about the documents that the ANC may or may not have, but whether the person in charge of intelligence-gathering at the time had any knowledge of the allegations against Ngcuka. The reasoning is so suspect, it is hard not to come to the conclusion that the ANC has other reasons for suggesting that Zuma should not appear. Not least of these is likely to be an attempt to contain the public relations nightmare that the ANC is increasingly facing, so soon ahead of a general election.

At the time that Zuma first expressed a willingness to appear before the commission, it seemed the allegations against Ngcuka could be substantiated. But subsequently, the admission by former human rights lawyer Vanessa Brereton that she was the spy identified as RS452 has left the allegations against Ngcuka looking insubstantial.

City Press, the newspaper that published the allegation that Ngcuka was investigated as possibly being a spy, claimed the report was based on a set of communications between a spy handler and his superiors. These documents do indeed indicate that a spy existed within the anti-apartheid structures of the ANC in Eastern Cape, and that the spy's code number was RS452. The article also claimed that ANC officials investigated whether Ngcuka was indeed this operative.

Since Brereton has now come forward, and her confession has been corroborated by the operative's handler, Karl Edwards, this particular line does not appear to substantiate the original claim.

The ANC in general and Zuma in particular now appear to be backing away from the commission. But it is not for the ANC to make a decision about who should or should not appear before it. Once started, the commission is obliged to finish its job and call witnesses at its discretion. It should be allowed to go about its business unhindered.

With acknowledgements to the Editor and the Business Day.