Publication	Independent Online
Date	2013-05-19
Reporter	Moshoeshoe Monare
Web Link	www.iol.co.za

In the spring of 2011, President Jacob Zuma took the unimaginable step of announcing a judicial commission of inquiry to probe the contentious arms deal in which his name and those of his party and comrades are indirectly implicated (even though none of the allegations against them was proven by a competent court).

The commission’s terms of reference included the rationale behind the biggest arms procurement in post-apartheid South Africa, whether anybody improperly influenced the awarding of the contract and whether any contract was “tainted by any fraud or corruption”.

However, almost two years later, the commission is making meaningless progress, hamstrung by procedural snags, infighting and what the former investigator Norman Moabi dubbed a secret agenda.

We report elsewhere in this newspaper that legal researcher Kate Painting has quit and another senior key member of staff is contemplating leaving. We understand that Painting’s departure was not a happy one. Internal ructions and office politics aside, the commission is yet to hear any evidence, and instead is seemingly intimidating witnesses and frustrating its dedicated staff members.

We are yet to hear the outcome of serious allegations contained in Moabi’s resignation letter, which were not adequately answered by Judge Willie Seriti, the commission’s chairman.

I previously challenged him to be transparent and assure the nation that he is the right person to execute this mission or do the right thing and quit. Witnesses are told to disclose their sources and prove authenticity of their evidence. This is tosh. A commission’s role is to gather information from witnesses, and use legal tools such as cross examination of witnesses and the testing of documents of evidential value to satisfy itself regarding the reliability of such evidence and credibility of the witnesses.

I am cautious to conclude that Moabi was correct to suggest the two-agenda conspiracy theory. I want to give Seriti the benefit of the doubt. However, so far he has not shown any sensitivity towards the public’s desire for a transparent process. This might sound fair to him, but he must remember that it is not the commission’s purpose and underlying philosophy to serve a political agenda. Its mission is to account to and provide answers to South Africans.

If it is true that the commission has again refused to subpoena the ruling party or Fana Hlongwane, the arms dealer at the centre of this storm, then I am tempted to say the commission is a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Inasmuch as I gullibly believed then that the commission was the right forum to expose what really happened and who did what, on second thought it would have been better for law enforcement agencies to conduct their own criminal investigations and let the prosecution institute action against the suspects. One may argue that the police and prosecution only acted in the context of factional battles in the ANC when people like Zuma, his financial advisor Shabir Shaik and ANC senior leader Tony Yengeni were targeted after falling out with their party rivals.

Granted, it was selective prosecution, considering a long list of top officials implicated in the arms deal. But is the commission the right platform to uncover the truth?

What truth?

With acknowledgement to Moshoeshoe Monare and Independent Online.

Tosh indeed.