Publication: Cape Times Issued: Date: 2006-07-05 Reporter: Linda Daniels Reporter: Reporter:

Arms Deal Contracts a Success, Assures Erwin

 

Publication 

Cape Times

Date

2006-07-05

Reporter

Linda Daniels

Web Link

www.capetimes.co.za

 

The major contracts clinched during the country's controversial arms deal were well managed and had been successful, Public Enterprises Minister Alec Erwin said.

Erwin yesterday brushed off allegations that top politicians pocketed bribes from German firms who were bidding for the corvette part of the deal.

The German media have reported that prosecuting authorities there have raided the offices of companies involved in the deal on suspicions that they had paid bribes.

Paying bribes in Germany in a bid to win defence contracts only became illegal in that country in February1999. Before that, it was accepted and earned companies tax breaks.

Questioned at a media briefing about the allegations, Erwin said that since it was a German investigation it would be wiser to wait for formal notification about what exactly was being investigated.

He said South Africa would co-operate with the investigation if asked by the Germans.

"We have not been informed about any of those matters, but we will co-operate if we have to. We remain confident that the major contracts *1 - not only were they well managed, but I think these many years later have been very successful."

Trade and Industry director-general Tshediso Matona said the offset programmes of the arms deal which saw successful bidders invest in the country were on track with only one exception.

With acknowledgements to Linda Daniels and Cape Times.



*1       Me thinks Minister Erwin seems to think that only the major contracts were clean.

This logically means that the sub-contracts were not necessarily clean.

But what is the corvette combat suite contract, a major contract or a sub-contract?

And then again, if investigations in Dusseldorf prove the suspicions, then the corvette main contract is also not clean.

And what seems to be the case, is that it is already accepted in Germany that the payment of Necessary Expenses were indeed made - it's only a matter of whether the timing of their authorisation meant that they constituted a criminal offence in German law.

But in South African law, if Necessary Expenses were indeed made, then whatever their timing they constitute a criminal offence in South African law, specifically in this case, the Corruption Act, No. 94 of 1992.

It's a bust.