Pierre Steyn made 'damning criticisms'

Former defence secretary Pierre Steyn should be called to testify before parliament's watchdog public accounts committee in the light of "new evidence" that the arms deal report may have been sanitised by the executive, the DA has said.

The DA's call for the standing committee on public accounts to discuss the allegations was to be discussed at the committee's meeting next Wednesday, Scopa chairman Francois Beukman (NNP) said yesterday.

Asked whether Scopa was likely to reopen the investigation, Beukman said he did not want to pre-empt Wednesday's discussion.

There was, however, a precedent from the previous parliament where Scopa had decided that any further allegations of irregularities would not be dealt with by the committee but forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

At a press conference yesterday, the DA quoted from the transcript of Steyn's evidence to arms deal investigators in August 2001 and said the exclusion of his "damning criticisms" raised serious questions about the draft joint investigating team's report.

Steyn quit his job prematurely in 1998.

He had, among other things, questioned the legal basis for embarking on the arms deal, argued that the procurement process was riddled with large-scale irregularities, stated that he was appalled by an investigation that was designed to give legitimacy to "political manipulation", and argued that the decision to select BAe-Saab as a preferred bidder for the jet trainer and fighter aircraft had been taken in advance.

He had also said that the arms bought were fundamentally flawed and that the defence force would not be able to maintain them.

Eddie Trent (DA) said it was a case of "the chickens coming home to roost", given that the defence department's chief director for strategic management, Antonie Visser, had told MPs last month that the defence force needed R120 million to put the new hardware acquired under the arms deal into use.

Visser also said the defence force lacked staff who had the technical knowledge to operate the new systems.

According to the transcript, Steyn told investigators it was irregular to consider a non-costed option for the Hawk jets.

"How on earth can you convince the general public out there that you will acquire an expensive system and damn the cost?" the transcript reads.

In an apparent reference to then-Defence Minister Joe Modise, Steyn said: "The minister said we must not be in a hurry and it is wrong for us to let people know that we cannot pay for the packages.

"Now, as an accounting officer, I was appalled. The capacity of the Department of Defence to man and operate these defence systems, once procured, is important. What is the purpose of spending R30 billion and you cannot operate them? We cannot even operate what we have."

Among the allegations made in the initial draft reports by the joint investigating team was that Modise had personally influenced the decision to opt for the Hawks, as opposed to the Italian jet favoured by the air force.

In the final report, after input from cabinet ministers, the investigators said they could not find any evidence that any individual cabinet minister had influenced the decisions.

The question about there being two sets of minutes was raised again yesterday.

Trent said the joint investigating team's final report had mentioned a memorandum from Steyn to then-chief of acquisitions Chippy Shaik questioning the accuracy of the minutes as they said a decision had been taken to choose the Hawk-Gripen option.

Steyn recalled that instead of recommending the more expensive Hawk-Gripen deal, a sub-committee had decided that both options should be considered pending an investigation into which would best benefit the local aerospace industry.

Trent said the joint investigating team's final report had not "interrogated the dispute nor questioned what transpired at the meeting in question".

Shaik told the Cape Times last year that he had been the official secretary for the sub-committee. *1

Trent said the controversy over the arms deal would not go away until many of his party's questions had been properly answered.

With acknowledgements to Angela Quintal and the Cape Times.

*1 He was not. He was the one giving the presentation to MINCOM. How can one be giving the presentation and be taking the minutes. What actually happened was that no official meeting secretary was appointed. While Shaikh was giving the presentation, the other co-chairperson of SOFCOM, Erich Esterhuyse, also Acting Managing Director of Armscor, was taking notes of the meeting which then became the minutes. Shaikh then took a digital copy on a stiffy disk from Esterhuyse and recreated a new set of minutes and submitted these to MINCOM while Esterhuyse was overseas - Cowabunga - roll out the wonga.