Publication: The Star Issued: Date: 2008-01-12 Reporter: Andrew Feinstein

It's Obvious the Arms Deal Report was Neutered

 

Publication 

The Star
Date

2008-01-12
Reporter Andrew Feinstein

Web Link

www.thestar.co.za

 

The ANC's decision this week to appoint a committee to look into the arms deal reflects the extent to which the deal continues to haunt South African politics.

The creation of this committee to compile a report to better inform the ANC leadership about the deal lays to rest the notion that there was a comprehensive investigation into the deal *1, as the government and ANC have claimed for years.

For if there had been an unfettered investigation, the ANC could simply refer to the investigator's report.

So implicitly the ANC has accepted that the investigation was neutered, that its report was edited to the point of mendacity *2 and that the real story has yet to emerge.

What the ANC should remember though is that a number of the investigators wanted to include in the report a recommendation that ANC corruption in the deal be further investigated. Unsurprisingly, their request never saw the light of day.

In an ideal political environment, the ANC committee would garner all the available facts relating to the deal, make public its findings and, where appropriate, take action against any of its own members who were involved in misdemeanours in the deal itself and the subsequent cover-up.

To encourage this approach, which would indicate that the ANC is willing to come to terms with the significant corruption in the deal, I have written to the ANC offering to give evidence before the committee based on my extensive research into the deal.

However, I fear that the committee's real task may be to generate propaganda to be used in an attempt to publicly exonerate Jacob Zuma and exert pressure on the judicial process leading up to his trial.

Another objective, in this fractured political climate, may be to apply pressure on Thabo Mbeki. After all, as I mention in my book, Mbeki's central and controversial role in the deal was barely touched on in the neutered investigation.

It is also worth recalling that when Zuma was first charged with corruption, his legal team suggested they might need to call the president (Mbeki) to give evidence as "he is the only one who would know whether the arms deal was corrupt or not."

The portents for the ANC inquiry are not good: the findings of the committee will not be made public, they will pick and choose who they hear evidence from and it includes at least two people whose own roles in the deal were unfortunate. Naledi Pandor, then chairperson of the National Council of Provinces, intervened, together with then Speaker Frene Ginwala, to inappropriately direct the ANC component of the public accounts committee as to what we should and should not do and say in relation to the investigation. And Siphiwe Nyanda was alleged to have received a significant discount on a luxury vehicle from one of the bidders in the deal at the time that he was head of the defence force.

In addition, the shadow of Tony Yengeni, recently elected to the ANC's national working committee, will also hang over the arms deal committee. It was Yengeni who aggressively tried to stop the public accounts committee from pursuing our inquiries. He was subsequently convicted for misleading parliament about the discount on a luxury vehicle he had received from the same bidder in the deal while he was chairperson of parliament's defence committee.

What is still desperately needed is a full, independent, unfettered and public investigation into the deal and its cover-up. It is only then that the South African public will know what has become of its 50-odd billion rands spent on arms, some of which we didn't need and to this day hardly use. Alternatively, we will only get to know more of the truth from the British and German investigations which are looking into $200-million of bribes paid on the South African deal.

It is possible that some of the murkier aspects of the deal may be revealed at Zuma's forthcoming corruption trial. It is essential for South Africa's democracy that the judicial process is allowed to run its course, unfettered by any form of pressure from the ANC, its allies or the government.

That Zuma has a case to answer is unequivocal. The judgment in the Schabir Shaik trial, confirmed in the rejection of all his appeals, stated that Shaik solicited money for Zuma, in return for which Zuma is alleged to have used his public offices to promote the interests of the providers of the money. In addition, since the Shaik judgment and appeals, further evidence has become available to the prosecutors.

The cries of "politically motivated trial" that accompanied the Shaik court case in no way minimise his guilt, proved so conclusively in a number of courts.

Where I believe there has been a problem in the process is that more people implicated in corruption in the arms deal have not been called to account. This includes the late Joe Modise, Fana Hlongwane and Chippy Shaik.

Zuma must be given his day in court so that, if shown to be innocent, he is able to proudly contest the 2009 election as the ANC's candidate for president.

If proven guilty of the serious charges facing him, he will have to face the consequences of his misdemeanours, including the likely end of his political career *3.

It would obviously be in Zuma and the country's interest if that trial was concluded before the commencement of the 2009 election.

In the lead-up to the trial it is crucial that the country's law enforcement and judicial authorities are insulated from the political battles raging within the ANC. The perceived protection of Commissioner Jackie Selebi, the dramatic arrest of Scorpions investigator Gerrie Nel and the strident comments made by political leaders about these authorities give the impression that our political leadership wish these entities to become part of the political playground, rather than focus on the enormous challenge of fighting the violent crime devastating the country. Such an eventuality would signal a serious crisis for our democracy.

The seeds of such shenanigans were planted during the unseemly succession battle within the ANC, in which the country's intelligence agencies were mired.

Andrew Feinstein is a former ANC MP. His book After the Party: A Personal and Political Journey Inside the ANC documents the arms deal and its consequences for South African politics.

With acknowledgements to Andrew Feinstein and The Star.

 


*1       I proved this conclusively and at my own considerable expense between 2001 and 2005.

But apart from a few newspaper articles in inter alia, Business Day, no one except for a few private individuals seemed to take the slightest notice or care the slightest bit.

I've said it a thousand times before and will say it many many times: Shauket Fakie CA(SA), Selby Baqwa SC and Bulelani Ngcuka are responsible for the biggest failure in the history of South Africa.

Apart from the non-involvement of the Heath Special Investigating Unit (for obvious reasons), all was in place for a very solid investigation and report. Indeed some very excellent work was done and even appeared in the draft report.

But these sad stooges cowed to Mbeki and his MINCOM and changed the report that might have cleansed the country of this sorry mess.

It's not too late to throw Fakie and Baqwa in jail and discard the key because it would never be needed again.

As much or even moreso, these stooges let down the country as anyone else, even more than Zuma who tried to protect his own backside and shutdown the investigation.


*2      It wasn't edited - it was completely dissembled and truncated.


*3      This'll be the least of his problems.

It'll just be a problem for all those waiting for their payback.