Publication: ANC Today Issued: Date: 2007-11-16 Reporter:

Lies, Damned Lies!

 

Publication 

ANC Today
Date

2007-11-16

Web Link

www.anc.org.za



In various editions of this journal, this column has exposed deliberate lies that have been told by some in the domestic and international media, who have the specific intention to discredit *1 our movement, the ANC, and our government.

The work to expose these lies is never a pleasant task *2. However it cannot be avoided as long as some in the media elect to tell lies about our movement, our government and country, to promote their agendas, as did one Chris McGreal in an article published by the British Guardian newspaper on 13 November 2007.

The shameless fabrications *3 concocted by McGreal derive from the unending campaign by our opponents to invent corrupt practice around the so-called "arms deal" - the acquisition for the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) of aircraft, corvettes and submarines.

Over the years government has insisted that the acquisition process resulting in government entering into primary contracts with the suppliers was free of any corruption and challenged anybody with information to the contrary to produce this information *4.

To date, absolutely nobody has done so *5. Rather our accusers have been happy to trot out various allegations, as does McGreal. They then engage in the dishonest practice of presenting these allegations as facts, obviously resolved that no ethical consideration, such as respect for the truth *6, will be allowed to frustrate their campaign.

Challenge #1

McGreal says, "A former speaker of parliament has already been convicted of accepting a bribe from a German weapons manufacturer." This is a blatant lie. We challenge McGreal to say who this "former speaker" is.

Challenge #1

McGreal means the ANC Chief Whip Tony Yengeni and he means that Yengeni was charged with accepting a bribe.

Yengeni actually entered into a plea bargain whereby the bribery charge was abandoned in favour of the easier to prove fraud charge.

Nothing huge turns on these minor errors of fact and McGreal's version is by no means a lie, let alone a blatant one.

Challenge #1 met.

Indeed Yengeni lied outright to The Nation in this instance.


Challenge #2

McGreal says, "Mbeki has quashed investigations by the South African parliament, the auditor general and the director of public prosecutions into the links between senior ANC officials, the party and the arms companies." This is a blatant lie. We challenge McGreal to produce even one fact to substantiate the allegation he makes.

Challenge #2

A fact : Mbeki quashed investigations by the South African Parliament who recommended that a Special Investigating Unit
investigate the Arms Deal.

It is beyond any doubt whatsoever that Mbeki quashed investigations by Heath Special Investigating Unit which was recommended by two senior counsel to receive a proclamation to investigate.

It was broadcast on SABC television on 19 January 2001.

Challenge #2 met.

Indeed Mbeki lied outright to The Nation in this instance.


Challenge #3

The truth that is known by everybody, but which McGreal hopes to wipe out from public memory, is that the Public Accounts Committee (SCOPA) of parliament conducted its own investigation without any let or hindrance by the ANC or the government, exactly because we had nothing to hide. As was its right and duty, the executive arm of government, through the then Leader of Government Business, the Deputy President of the Republic, Jacob Zuma, wrote to SCOPA to respond to its Report. We challenge McGreal to produce one fact to disprove this statement.

Challenge #3

SCOPA did not actually conduct its own fullscale investigation. It only investigated the overall situation in response to the AG's Special Report of September 2000. This culminated in the hearings of 11 October 2000 followed by SCOPA's 14th Report which recommended a fullscale forensic investigation by the AG, PP, NDPP and Heath SIU.

Once pressure was applied by the ANC government on the ANC members of SCOPA (who were of course in the majority), SCOPA was forced to backtrack on the inclusion of the Heath SIU.

Furthermore once the JIT Report was issued in November 2001 and clearly leaving a multitude of matters unresolved, SCOPA issued its final report simply accepting the situation.

Although the JIT Report was very weak on recommendations, there has not even been a report on how these were to be resolved.

These are facts.

Challenge #3 met.

So Mbeki lied outright to The Nation in this instance.

Challenge #4

McGreal says Tony Yengeni "led the campaign on behalf of Mbeki to shut down parliament's investigation of the weapons contracts." This is a blatant lie. We challenge McGreal to produce one fact to substantiate his claim.


Challenge #4

This is Andrew Feinstein's position on the matter.

As a senior ANC MP, senior ANC SCOPA member and someone with personally experience of this, who is anyone to gainsay Feinstein.

Feinstein's testimony is effective prima facie evidence.

Challenge #4 met.


Challenge #5

The Parliamentary Committee recommended that various state organs should conduct an investigation into the defence procurement. As a result, our country's Auditor General, the National Director of Public Prosecutions and the Public Protector carried out this work jointly and submitted their Report to Parliament. We challenge McGreal to produce one fact to demonstrate that what we have said is untrue.

This is true, but is McGreal challenging this fact.

But more importantly SCOPA wanted the Heath SIU as part of the joint investigation.

That the HSIU was excluded is a fact.

McGreal says "the South African air force's requirements (for a trainer aircraft) could have been adequately met through the cheaper Italian (Aeromacchi) bid (instead of the more expensive BAe Systems bid)." But what are the facts!

The truth is that once the decision was taken to acquire the Gripen fighter-aircraft for the airforce, it was clear that it would be incorrect to acquire the Aeromacchi trainer. This was for the simple reason that it would not be possible to graduate from the Aeromacchi trainer to fly the Gripen. *1

Challenge #5

JIT Report :

"4.6.4  At an AASB meeting held on 16 July 1998, it was minuted that SAAF confirmed that the first contenders in respect of the LIFT, i.e. the MB339FD, the L159 and the Hawk, could all satisfy the pilot training requirements for a conversion from the Astra to the ALFA."
The chairman of the meeting ruled that it was the AASB's recommendation that the MB339FD be procured in accordance with the preference of SAAF within its envisaged fighter training system.

On 16 July 1998 the Armament Acquisition Steering Board (AASB) sat in their Meeting No. 2/98 held in the Auditorium, DHQ, at 08:00 CAT under the chairmanship of the Secretary of Defence Mr P.D. Steyn. It was a properly constituted meeting with quorum and full authority to make all relevant decisions in accordance with the document acquisition process MODAC.

The Minutes of the meeting records at Paragraph 4 as follows :
"The results of the military evaluation, the risk assessment and the cost analysis are shown culminating in the overall Military best value for money result recommended by the project team, confirmed by the SAAF Command Council, and presented to the SOFCOM. The SAAF confirm that the first three contenders, the MB 339 FD, the L 159 and the r^AWK all satisfy the SAAF pilot training requirement for conversion from the ASTRA to the ALFA."
The Minutes of the same meeting records at Paragraph 7(d) as follows :
The Chairman rules that the AASB recommendation is the MB 339 FD as evaluated, and noted that this result is the SAAF preference within the envisaged "SAAF fighter training system" required by the SAAF.
There is no recorded dissent from Chief of the SANDF Gen S. Nyanda and Chief of the SAAF Lt Gen W.H. Hechter, both being in attendance.

That the Aermacchi MB 339 MB is the clear formal selection of the SAAF is beyond any doubt whatsoever.

Challenge #5 met.

So either Mbeki or Shauket Fakie lied to The Nation in this instance.


Challenge #6

The BAe Systems Hawk satisfied the requirements for a trainer to prepare pilots to fly the Gripen. Had we bought the Aeromacchi trainer, we would still have to buy the Hawk and use the Italian trainer to prepare pilots to fly the Hawk, despite the fact that our airforce already has trainers to prepare pilots to fly this aircraft. Clearly it would be absurd to proceed in this manner. We challenge McGreal to produce one fact to demonstrate that what we have said is false.

Challenge #6

That the SAAF would also require the Hawk to train pilots for the Gripen is an outright falsehood.

The SAAF evaluation as documented clearly in the JIT Report shows otherwise.

Challenge #6 met.

So Mbeki's stooge lies outright in this instance.


Challenge #7

McGreal says our airforce was "strongly opposed to buying the British fighters". This is a blatant lie. We challenge McGreal to produce one fact to substantiate his claim.


Challenge #7

The minutes of the 16 July 1998 Armaments Acquisition Steering Board (AASB) Meeting No. 2/98 shows that the SAAF was "strongly opposed to buying the Hawk fighter trainer".

Challenge #7 met.

So Mbeki's stooge lies outright in this instance.


Challenge #8

McGreal also says "the secretary of defence, Pierre Steyn, later resigned over what he described to investigators as the 'arse-about-face' decision in which the military's requirements were tailored to suit the choice already made by the politicians."

The truth is that the defence acquisition was based on acceptance of the outcomes of a Defence Review in which the SA National Defence Force was intimately involved, which were accepted by our Parliament and our population at large. What McGreal said about Pierre Steyn is a blatant lie. We challenge McGreal to produce one fact to prove the contrary.

Challenge #8

The transcript of the interview under oath with Pierre Dirksen Steyn on 14 August 2001 conducted by Adv S Mzinyathi, H. Mostert and G. Swats records as follows :
"It is a, the whole process was turned arse about face and patently I was irritated no end at going through a facade of legitimising what we were doing."

 
"Look Mr Mostert, the decision makers and those who supported the decision makers tried various avenues to get to presumably their predetermined choice. Their choice for the Hawk was patently clear right from the start, the Hawk 100. They tried non-costed options, it did not work. They tried, let us consider risk. None of them were decided upon upfront, when the process started. These were so serious deviations from procedure, that I was highly irritated and a statement made like that, was patently an attempt to say, Mr Steyn, please think broader than the defence requirements and procedures, because I have a duty to think nationally. I was not impressed."

 
"Mr Swats, right from the start there were, there were considerable deviation from the prescripts of the acquisition process. Materially and otherwise."

 
Regarding his resignation, Mr Steyn is on public record as saying that he resigned due to his concerns with the Arms Deal acquisition process. As far as I know he has not rebutted this recordal.

Challenge #8 met.

So Mbeki's stooge lies outright in this instance.


Challenge #9

McGreal reports that one Andrew Feinstein, a former member of the ANC and MP, "said the politicians decided in favour of the British planes at an 'informal meeting' attended by Mbeki, (the late former minister of Defence, Joe) Modise and at least one official since implicated in corruption in the deal. The BAe bid was then presented to the cabinet for approval without any other bids on the table."

The entirety of the assertions made in this passage is nothing more than a conglomeration of blatant lies. We challenge McGreal to ask his informant, Andrew Feinstein, to assist him by providing him with the single facts to substantiate the claims that McGreal chose to report approvingly.

Challenge #9

The meeting was indeed an informal one.

It was : The person who gave the presentation to the meeting as well as concocted a second set of minutes was Chief of Acquisitions Chippy Shaik, was has been implicated as having received a bribe from a successful bidder.

Challenge #9 met.

So Mbeki's stooge lies outright in this instance.


Challenge #10

McGreal wrote, "Feinstein says that besides eventually shutting down his (sic!) investigation, the presidency also put pressure on the auditor general to alter a report saying there were 'fundamental flaws' in the process, (which) was manipulated to ensure the contract went to BAe."

There was never any Feinstein investigation and no pressure was put on the Auditor General (AG) to alter any of his findings. In keeping with established practice, the AG gave government a copy of his report to ensure the accuracy of the facts that would inform his findings. Accordingly, the government responded to the matter of facts, as required in any auditing process, which also guarantees the AG the right to verify any facts presented to him/her. Again we challenge McGreal to ask his informant, Andrew Feinstein, to assist him by providing him with the single facts to substantiate the claims that McGreal chose to report approvingly.

Challenge #10

That pressure was put on the Auditor General (AG) to alter his findings is supported by unchallengeable documentary evidence which I have in my possession which plainly shows that the final JIT Report differs very substantially to the draft report given to the presidency and MINCOM.

The AG is on record as saying the following in Parliament on 4th December 2001
"[Mr S Fakie]            On the issue of the Draft Report being submitted to the President and the 4Cabinet Ministers, I know this has been a matter of much controversy and questioning in the media, and I specifically tried to address this when we tabled this Report in Parliament, and in the main the issue here is that firstly as part of due process, and the Report is very specific around this, we followed due process throughout this Report. You would find that even when we found something on paper, and this was our interpretation of how the thing happened and the facts, when we interviewed witnesses we checked the factual accuracy of what we interpret as a fact. And that is part of due process, whether it's an audit, whether it's an investigation or whether it is a forensic investigation. You have to check the facts of what you interpret on documentation. And that is part of the due process that we followed. Now specifically relating to the Draft Report being made available to the President and the 4 Ministers, they formed part of a Committee called MINCOM. And MINCOM was a critical player in the whole Arm Procurement Process from a recommendation point of view. And a lot of recommendation came through to the Ministers Committee that deliberated those issues. They also were the Committee that actually presented information for Cabinet approval. So in our view, those members within MINCOM are critical in order for us to understand the factual correctness of the issues in our Report, and why certain decisions were taken in a certain way. And it was as a result of that as well, and in addition to that, the third issue that I would like to put on the table, that when I was party to this Joint Investigation I did my job in terms of the Auditor-General Act, because that is a mandate on which I work on. Specifically Section 4 (6) of the Auditor-General Act says that any funds that gets expended out of the Special Defence Account requires as part of due process for me to consult with the Ministers involved and the President before I finalize the Report and before the Report comes to public. The background and the reason behind that specific section being included in the Auditor-General Act was that there may be issues of national interest that I am not aware of. And the President and the Ministers involved within the particular section are probably more aware of issues of national interest. And it gives them the opportunity to bring to my attention something that is included in the Report that may be of national interest, and I must watch. And there was nothing in this Report, I want to give you assurance, which was identified as issues of national interest that I need to take into consideration, except the fact it was stated that the detailed quotations from Cabinet Minutes, etc. are privileged documents. We can look at those Cabinet Minutes. We can make our findings from the issues that were deliberated but the details of quotations should not be here. That is the only issue that we got input on. So it was part of due process. It was part of acting within my Auditor-General Act, Section 4 (6) that we actually consulted with the President and the four Ministers to finalize this Report. So that is the third issue."

 
So the AG denies that the input resulting in the final version regards matters of fact, only potentially matters of national interest of which there were none.

There were indeed Government/DoD inputs into the report, but this was at a much earlier stage of the drafting process.

There is clear documentary evidence of MINCOM consisting of Ministers Lekota, Manuel, Erwin and President Mbeki gave instructions to fundamentally change the key findings and conclusion of the JIT's report.

Challenge #10 met.

So both Mbeki and Shauket Fakie lied outright to The Nation in this instance.


Challenge #11

McGreal says Tony Yengeni "went to prison for accepting bribes from a German arms manufacturer". Yengeni was found guilty of fraud, based on the charge that he had defrauded Parliament by presenting it with false information. The assertion made by McGreal is both a blatant lie and is libellous. We challenge McGreal to produce one fact to prove that Yengeni was convicted of accepting a bribe by a German arms manufacturer.

Challenge #11

The assertion made by McGreal is certain not a blatant lie.

Yengeni went to prison for fraud, but he was charged with accepting bribes from a German arms manufacturer.

It is doubtful that such a statement is libellous or defamatory.

It certainly is both true and in the public interest to know that Yengeni was charged with accepting bribes from a German arms manufacturer and that he only escaped being convicted on such a charge by entering into a plea bargain with The State..

Challenge #11 met.


Challenge #12

Like others who share his agenda, McGreal does not explain that Shabir Shaik is serving a jail sentence for offences that have absolutely nothing to do with the primary contracts into which government entered, which were not affected by any corruption. We challenge McGreal to produce one fact to show that what we have said is not true.


Challenge #12

Schabir Shaik was convicted for two corruption offences both related to his dealings with Thomson-CSF and ADS, suppliers of the corvette combat suite.

The contract to supply the corvette combat suite is incorporated into the contract to supply the entire corvette, inclusive of it's corvette combat suite, in terms of the Umbrella Agreement and subsidiary Supply Agreement entered into with the European South African Corvette Consortium (ESACC), two of whose members are Thomson-CSF Naval Systems and ADS.

Both Thomson-CSF Naval Systems and ADS are independent and full parties to and signatories of these agreements.

Other signatories are the South African Government represented by its Ministry of Defence and Department of Trade and Industry. Another signatory is Armscor, the South African Government's statutory authority for armaments acquisition.

This contract is the primary contract for the corvettes and therefore two things can factually be said : Challenge #12 met.

So both Mbeki and his stooge lied to The Nation in this instance.


Challenge #13

McGreal wrote, "BAe, along with German and French firms, have been accused of paying bribes to senior ANC politicians and government officials, and of helping to fund the ANC's 1999 election campaign in return for a slice of the country's largest ever weapons buying spree." We challenge McGreal to produce one fact that has been tabled by our accusers in almost a decade, to substantiate their accusations.

Challenge #13

The facts that BAe has been accused of paying bribes to senior ANC politicians and government officials are contained in the UK's Serious Fraud Office's Mutual Letter of Assistance sent to the South African Government mid-2006.

The facts that German firms have been accused of paying bribes to senior ANC politicians and government officials are contained in the German Prosecuting Authority's Mutual Letter of Assistance sent to the South African Government mid-2007.

The fact that a French firm has been found to have paid a bribe to a senior ANC politician is contained in the judgments on the High Court Durban and Coast Local Division issued in May 2005 confirmed by the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal issued in September 2007.

Challenge #13 met.

So both Mbeki and his stooge lied to The Nation in this instance.


Challenge #14

McGreal said "Britain's Serious Fraud Office (SFO)...(has made a) request to the South Africans for assistance (with investigations it is conducting into allegations that BAe)...paid (£75m) in 'commissions'. That help has not been forthcoming." The assertion about our government's refusal to "help" the SFO is a blatant lie. We challenge McGreal to tell the whole truth in this regard, including the legal requirements that must be met when any legal assistance is requested, consistent with the obligation to respect the rule of law.

McGreal ended his article, which is made up of a litany of fabrications, by saying "(ANC Deputy President) Zuma is now facing the prospect of corruption charges himself, which may derail his efforts to replace Mbeki as president. He has said if he does land up in court he will name names, and bring others in the ANC down with him."

We do not know if Deputy President Zuma will be prosecuted. Unlike McGreal, we have never heard him say he will "name names, and bring others in the ANC down with him". If this is true, and means that our Deputy President will expose all those in our movement who have been involved in corruption, he will enjoy the full and unqualified support of the entirety of the ANC in all its echelons.

Challenge #14

Few outside the National Prosecuting Authorities and Departments of Foreign Affairs and Justice know the legal requirements that must be met when any legal assistance is requested, consistent with the obligation to respect the rule of law.

We challenge the author of this rebuttal and his principals in the South African Government to : Challenge #14 counter-challenged.


Challenge #15

McGreal wrote "Despite Mbeki's efforts to bury the issue, the graft around the arms deal keeps rearing its head." Cabinet, led by Nelson Mandela, constituted a Cabinet Committee to lead the defence acquisition process that emanated from the requirements identified during an eminently transparent Defence Review, to which we have referred.

This Cabinet Committee was chaired by the then Deputy President, Thabo Mbeki, and included the Ministers of Defence, Finance, Trade and Industry and Public Enterprises. This Committee considered all the bids, at all times sitting as a collective, and made the necessary and considered recommendations to our Cabinet.

Having studied these recommendations, our Cabinet chose the "preferred bidders" who ultimately met our requirements, after the perfectly normal negotiations with them to finalise the detailed contractual agreements between them, the primary contractors, and our Government.

The "graft around the arms deal" alleged by McGreal could only have taken place if the primary contractors succeeded to bribe the members of the Cabinet Committee and the Cabinet, the collectives involved in awarding the defence contracts. McGreal would have no difficulty of any kind in establishing the specific names of all those who were members of these collectives and participated in the relevant meetings, including the final meetings in 2000. Should he seek this information, we are certain that government would be more than willing to assist him.

It is now more than seven years since the conclusion of the strategic defence procurement contracts - the so-called arms deal. Surely this is a long enough period of time to unearth any wrongdoing that might have taken place during the consideration, the negotiation and the awarding of these contracts.

We challenge McGreal to produce even one solitary fact that demonstrates that any of the people who were members of the Cabinet collectives to which we have referred were involved in any graft. In this regard, of course McGreal would be perfectly free to consult all his informants, including Feinstein, the British SFO, and the others whose interests are and have been served by the propagation of falsehoods that some in the domestic and international media have been pleased to print and broadcast over many years, treating with absolute contempt their ethical obligation not to tell lies.


Challenge #15

The author of this rebuttal refers to "perfectly normal negotiations".

He and his principles in the South African Government are challenged to explain how the Deputy President's and Chairman of MINCOM's secret and ongoing meetings and consultations with Thomson-CSF regarding the supply of the corvette combat suite during the period of mid-1997 to mid-1999 can be considered to be "perfectly normal negotiations".

Challenge #15 counter-challenged.

 

Four-and-a-half years ago, in Vol 3 No 21 of this Journal, we published a Letter from the President entitled "Our country needs facts, not groundless allegations". In this Letter our President said:

"In the Biblical Gospel according to St Matthew, it is said that Jesus Christ saw Simon Peter and his brother Andrew fishing in the Sea of Galilee. And He said to them: "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men."

"Perhaps taking a cue from this, some in our country have appointed themselves as 'fishers of corrupt men'. Our governance system is the sea in which they have chosen to exercise their craft. From everything they say, it is clear that they know it as a matter of fact that they are bound to return from their fishing expeditions with huge catches of corrupt men (and women)....

"We should not, and will not abandon the offensive to defeat the insulting campaigns further to entrench a stereotype that has, for centuries, sought to portray Africans as a people that is corrupt, given to telling lies, prone to theft and self-enrichment by immoral means, a people that is otherwise contemptible in the eyes of the 'civilised'. We must expect that, as usual, our opponents will accuse us of "playing the race card", to stop us confronting the challenge of racism.

"The fishers of corrupt men are determined to prove everything in the anti-African stereotype. They rely on their capacity to produce long shadows and innumerable allegations around the effort of our government to supply the South African National Defence Force with the means to discharge its constitutional and continental obligations. They are confident that these long shadows and allegations without number will engulf and suffocate the forces that fought for and lead our process of democratisation, reconstruction and development.

"However, what our country needs is substance and not shadows, facts instead of allegations, and the eradication of racism. The struggle continues."

The lies told by McGreal, for which the British Guardian gave him space in its pages, confirm everything our President said in 2003. The struggle continues.

(In this article we have presented 15 specific challenges to Chris McGreal to respond to the assertion we have made that he abused the readers of the Guardian by feeding them a plethora of lies. McGreal may be in possession of facts that would disprove the statements we have made. Should McGreal provide such facts, ANC Today undertakes to publish these in full, to ensure that the truth is told and that we respect the well-established media practice of the right to reply. Editor.)

 

*1       Ironically the rebuttal discredits its author and his principals, presumably the ANC, the government and its president.


*2      Unlike exposing these lies which was a very pleasant task, if somewhat time-consuming.


*3      The fabrications in rebuttal are indeed shameless.


*4      The SA Government has indeed challenged anybody with information to the contrary to produce this information.

All it has done is to use the might of government to whitewash thew reality and besmirch the whistleblowers.

But the challenge is eagerly accepted with one caveat, I swop my documentary evidence for copies of the UK and German MLAs.

It's a deal?


*5      Except, of course, the High Court Durban and Coast Local and the Supreme Court of Appeal.


*6      When living in glass houses, it is surely best not to throw stones, large boulders less so.