Publication: DA Issued: Date: 2007-08-02 Reporter: Eddie Trent

“DA Slams NPA Refusal to Prosecute Chippy Shaik”

  Statement by Eddie Trent MP
DA Spokesperson on the Arms Deal

2 August 2007

In response to a parliamentary question, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has indicated that it will not pursue criminal charges against Mr Chippy Shaik. The NPA’s response is fundamentally problematic for two reasons:

1.      A substantial amount of evidence exists in South Africa, and is available to the NPA, which suggest that there have been improprieties on the part of Mr Shaik; and

2.      More importantly, there are three international investigations into the arms deal not yet concluded in Sweden, Germany and Britain.

It is difficult to understand how the NPA could have arrived at a decision not to investigate Mr Shaik when the other three investigations are still ongoing and further evidence may be uncovered in the future. With regard to the investigation taking place in Germany, it is public knowledge that Mr Shaik has been directly connected to the arms deal by Markus Dettmer (investigative journalist for Der Spiegel), and it is believed that there is substantial evidence to back up these claims.

We find it unbelievable that the NPA is not actively pursuing this investigation.  A possible explanation is that *1, should the NPA pursue a case against Mr Shaik, who was intricately involved in the procurement process, he could name names and cause tremendous difficulties at an extremely sensitive period for the ruling party in general, and for the president specifically.

The DA will be submitting further questions to the NPA in an attempt to establish the reasons for deciding not to pursue criminal charges against Mr Shaik.

Media Enquiries

Eddie Trent MP – 083 600 8949
Marike Groenewald – 082 952 0522

Department: Justice and Constitutional Development

National Assembly Written Reply Question No. : 977
22 June 2007


Mr E W Trent (DA) to ask the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development


(1)Whether any investigating agency has conducted a criminal investigation into the role of a certain person (name furnished) after a certain dossier (details furnished) implicated him of misconduct in September 1999 and again after the Joint Investigation Team, including the National Director of Public Prosecutions found that he has contravened his declared conflict of interest and recusal in the strategic defence packages acquisition process; if so, (a) when was it conducted and (b) what have been the outcomes; if not, why not;

(2) Whether such investigation will be conducted in the future; if not, why not; if so, when?                          


Reply

The Directorate of Special Operations (DSO) was unable to use the dossier referred to by the Honourable Member in the course of its investigation of the strategic defence packages acquisition process, given that it contained no substantiated evidence of value to a criminal investigation. Although the allegations against the person referred to by the Honourable Member were accordingly considered under the broad auspices of the initial preparatory investigation conducted by the DSO, no sufficiently credible evidence was found to expand this leg of the investigation into a fully fledged criminal investigation in terms of section 28(1) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, No 32 of 1998, as amended.  Consequently, his role in the process was not investigated and he is likewise currently not the subject of an investigation by the DSO.”


*1       Me thinks that Mr Trent MP has it about right on the nail.