The dictionary talks about a bribe as something offered to influence judgment unduly, or to persuade someone to behave in a certain way.

In the business arena, salespeople are often paid with a percentage commission for the sales they deliver. Brokers, spotters or agents, on the other hand, are often paid introduction fees or commissions for certain chunks of business they might have helped in concluding. Agreed upfront, it’s a practice accepted by many.

It appears that — despite denials — there may be some commissions or fees possibly paid by European companies to assist in closing the arms deals here. These companies needed help dealing with, tendering for, or closing, some huge sales in a country with which they weren’t familiar. Someone to smooth or facilitate the deal. Why else would a company willingly give away money?

And what about black economic empowerment deals like Reunert’s questionable transaction, where four businesswomen facilitating or brokering the deal received a risk-free fee of up to R100m each? Other than the issue of disclosure, I struggle to see the difference.

Again, why would a company willingly pay out so much to the brokers/agents when they could do the deal directly?

These fees make anything Schabir Shaik might have received seem like small change.

With acknowledgement to R Lendrum and Business Day.