President Jacob Zuma
Picture: Martin Rhodes

ON TUESDAY the arms deal commission announced it was postponing the start of its oral hearings for five months. It had been due to start hearing evidence next week, but now says the first witness will take the stand only in August.

While the announcement has the principal affect of disappointing those who want to uncover the truth, it may also have a political impact, in that those who are in danger from the commission will have more breathing space. It could also mean the commission itself may never make a final finding, or that by the time it does, those in danger will have left high office.

When the commission’s terms of reference were released by President Jacob Zuma, they were warmly welcomed. They appeared to be broad and far-reaching, and appeared to some to be a very real attempt by Mr Zuma finally to get to the bottom of the deal, which has been called "the original sin of the ANC in power".

However, it appears it may be those wide-reaching terms of reference that have added to the commission’s problems.

Once it invited submissions, it was obvious the evidence it received would be voluminous. Anti-arms deal activist Terry Crawford-Browne, who has seen the evidence in paper form at the commission’s headquarters, suggests it’s literally "mountains of documents". He says merely paginating them all is going to take some time.

He’s concerned that the commission is now going to delay its proceedings and not "get to the substance" of the problems. As a result he wants the commission to make a "hard and fast recommendation now" to the government based on the evidence it’s examined so far.

However tempting Mr Crawford-Browne’s suggestion may be, any person named in such a report would probably have a legal basis on which to declare the findings null and void, based on the incompleteness of the investigation.

The commission has already said it is likely to have to last for longer than the two years first scheduled. Legally, the decision to prolong its existence is up to Mr Zuma, but he is likely to face political pressure to extend it, unless it looks like it will never achieve a result. This delay may add to that feeling.

While there is likely to be much anticipation of the commission’s findings, for serving politicians, merely giving testimony could be dangerous. Being cross-examined is something Mr Zuma himself and other players are likely to want to avoid. Thus, they may well welcome this delay.

But the commission’s real enemy may be public opinion. The longer it drags on, the more it appears unable to find evidence against anyone in a powerful position, the less interested the public will be, and the less impact it will have on our politics.

At the same time, as it drags on, it will become more likely that commissioners will make mistakes. Already it has suffered several high-level resignations. It is made up of three judges, who could well be regretting agreeing to serve in this capacity, as it will keep them tied up with just this matter for some time. And as the costs mount up, public opinion could turn against it.

Thus, unless the commission actually starts to gain momentum in some way, and is not merely a rehashing of the criticism levelled at the arms deal so far, it could find itself terminated with nothing more than a whimper.

While it is important for the commission to be thorough in its work, it may be important for it to create this momentum, so that it is not delegitimised in this way, as it could still be the best hope for South Africans to get to the truth.

• Grootes is an Eyewitness News Reporter.

 

Related articles

• Arms deal probe delayed again

• Critic calls for Seriti to subpoena arms deal negotiators

• Bid to dispel fears over arms probe

With acknowledgement to Stephen Grootes and Business Day. 

This may in just about every respect be drinking from a poisoned chalice.

Maybe it was designed that way.

Maybe, maybe not.

Ours is not to reason why,
ours is to do or go to prison.