....Multi billion Rand arms deal. Dr Richard Young, MD of the company CCII alleges there were irregularities in the awarding of the contract to the French controlled company, Detexis which is the sister company of African Defence Systems. Young says the link between Chippy Shaikh, the arms acquisition head in the department of defence and his brother Shabir, who runs African Defence Systems, is a clear conflict of interest. Furthermore he says his technology is far superior to the company that was chosen. However the project officer for the Navy’s Corvette programme Rear Admiral Johnny Kamerman has today accused Young of misleading the public. Dr Richard Young joins us now to answer that.

Good afternoon Dr Young, first of all, what is your response to the accusation that you are misleading the public in your accusations?

Well, I would certainly deny that. When I talked about the technology that has now been offered, there are actually two technologies involved and I’m talking about what we call the point-to-point serial technology, which, in the project officer’s own directions to the bidding companies, provided a letter which says that point-to-point systems are not acceptable to the SAN. And this point-to-point technology that I’m talking about has been used in the US Navy in the 1950's, 60's and 70's and has been found extremely limiting to the US Navy and other Navies. So when I say retrogressive I think I’m right.

Kamerman says that the Detexis system was used by the British and French Navy, is that the same system you are mentioning?

Well, that came up during the hearings; saying that the Royal Navy’s Type-45 destroyers are going to be using a Detexis system. Until they provide me with a document which precisely describes the technologies and the configuration, how can I be sure that it is the same as what’s being offered for our system?

And yet you are making that accusation. I mean its surely very difficult to know exactly what’s going on in another company and how far advanced their technology is.

No, I’m talking about what is being offered to the Royal Navy. I know in terms of various documents which have been provided to us by ADS, not precisely, precisely, but in overall technical terms what is being offered for our own Navy and I know that includes the point-to-point serial links. So when it comes to our Navy, I do know what’s going on; I don’t know what’s going on in the Royal Navy.

So you can back-up your claims that this is old technology and definitely inferior to what you are offering.

Yes, let’s just be a little careful about the word ‘technology’. I want to talk about techniques and topology. I think that the technologies are old, but it’s more about the system architecture and the point-to-point interconnection techniques.

Basically you are using the issue of technology to back-up your claim that there was a conflict of interest regarding Chippy Shaik and his brother who is linked to ADS.

I think that is a little bit of a leap of logic. Some of my claims are not necessarily and absolutely linked.

Okay, but you are also saying there is a conflict of interest aren’t you?

Yes, I’m saying that.

That is what we have been reporting and we are here to hear it from you basically. So you tell us.

Yes, you can hear it from me because, as I quoted at the SCOPA hearings, Mr Shaikh himself said in at least three occasions during the SCOPA hearings that "I have a conflict of interest", not a potential or a possible one he said "I have a conflict of interest and therefore I am recusing myself". I’m just reporting what was said. I’m not making accusations.

But we also heard he did attend some of those key meetings despite that conflict of interest which he spoke of. Is that something he’s been dealing with?

He attended it as chairman and he is on the record. He is minuted as taking part in discussions of the Combat Suite Data Bus which is part of the Corvette; that he declared his conflict of interest in that regard. These are not accusations. I’m just reporting what has been said under formal questioning.

So why do you think Detexis got the contract over you?

Because, as I said during the hearings, is that the company who "owns" the architecture of this combat system has a very good leg up for the future, for the next 15 or 30 years whatever it is. And the backbone of the architecture is the interconnection system, the local area network. So it’s a business decision for the future. The word ‘commercial’ came up time and time again during the questioning. It’s a commercial decision for the future.

So why did they get it over you? Because you are not saying there was anything wrong with that decision then?

I am saying that because Detexis were not there from the beginning and they were not compliant with the User Requirement Specification. No technical person would dispute that. And if the technical specification changed, then at least we should have been given the opportunity to quote against a newcomer, against the new technical requirement. Once one has baselines, one quotes and provides against baselines. That is what baselines are for.

Let’s deal with the issue of the allegations and threats against you that legal action is going to be taken. Kamerman apparently says that you released secret documents and you knew you weren’t supposed to release those documents. Tell us why you’ve gone ahead with that release.

Releasing what secret documents?

Well, that’s the copy we are getting. That you have been quoting from secret documents to back-up your arguments. That is the accusation against you. I just wondered if you could answer that.

I’m in possession of a number of confidential and restricted documents to which I’m quite entitled. They were issued to me by people including Kamerman and his staff. I made very sure upfront that I had clearance from the Minister of Defence in terms of Section 118 of the Defence Act and Section 11A of the Armscor Act to quote from those classified documents. Other documents which came to my attention, I’m only talking about confidential documents and restricted documents, I have handed over immediately to the forensic auditors. And I have a complete indemnity in using the content of some of those documents in the hearings as recorded by the Public Protector himself.

Thank you very much Dr Richard Young, MD of CCII who has been testifying at the hearings into the arms probe.