ADDRESS BY THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, MR B T NGCUKA, TO PARLIAMENT ON THE JOINT REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE STRATEGIC DEFENCE PACKAGES

15 November 2001

A. Introductory Remarks

Madam Speaker, Mr. President, Mr. Deputy-President, Cabinet Ministers and Members of Parliament

I would like to address you on the role of the National Prosecuting Authority and its findings regarding the investigation into the Strategic Defence Packages. Before I do this I wish to say something about how we have viewed the investigation and the fulfilment of our obligations in the process.

Madam Speaker,

Investigations, by their very nature, generate expectations and controversy: controversy in that an over-zealous investigation might be seen as a witch-hunt or a fishing expedition, whilst a superficial investigation might smack of a cover-up.

The test of commitment lies not in a preference for any of theses extremes, but in a golden mid-way, where a balance is struck between the demands for accuracy, rigorous investigation and the rights of privacy of those affected.

Our pursuit has been deliberate; to conduct a proper and diligent examination that reaffirms the solid foundation and pillars of our legal system and ultimately enhances our democracy.

Because of human nature, news that an investigation is underway tends to create the expectation that something bad will be found. An investigation is expected to either implicate or exculpate. Often that is not the case.

The investigation has essentially been about probity: whether those representing the government have conducted business diligently, properly and in the best interest of the country. Secondly, whether the contracting parties have followed the rules of good faith and fairness.

The issues of procedure, checks and balances, compliance with policy and good business practice have all been an important part of this inquiry. Relating to this has been the question whether crimes have been committed and, more specifically, whether prosecutions could be and ought to be instituted. Our findings, given the purpose of this report, will probably be the subject of considerable debate.

We have at all times endeavoured to act in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution in conducting the investigation with resolute independence, depth of courage and an uncompromising standard of intellectual integrity.

In essence, we are duty-bound to conduct our business in a measured, accountable and objective manner that instils legitimacy and respect for the law. That, we hope, we have done without abuse of power or process.

An investigation of this kind can, of course, never be perfect because the discipline involved is not an exact science and the human element can never be accounted for fully.

The challenge, presented by this investigation, goes to the raison d'etre of the institutions supporting constitutional democracy and those involved in the administration of justice. The impartiality, objectivity and independence of the three institutions involved are issues that have remained in the arena consistently. We hope that we will not be found wanting.

B. The Role of the National Prosecuting Authority

Since the matter was referred to my office, we have pursued the investigation with a view to find evidence to substantiate the suspicion of the commission of the offences of corruption and fraud during the acquisition process. At the commencement of the investigation there were wide-ranging allegations, which called into question the Strategic Defence Packages, the role of the Government and various individuals. This posed an enormous challenge to my office; particularly in view of the perceptions and expectations these allegations have created.

During our investigation we have been able to differentiate those allegations, which have merit from those that are unfounded. This exercise has significantly limited the scope of the investigation to specific areas bearing on single individuals or entities.

C. The Allegations

Madam Speaker, I will deal with the allegations by highlighting those that proved to be without substance; those that have substance and where action has been taken; and those that are currently the subject of ongoing investigation.

Allegations without substance

The allegations that were found to be without substance and therefore required no further investigation are the following:  

• that Mr. L Swan, a senior official at Armscor, became a director of British Aerospace, which was one of the prime contractors;
• that the Chief of Acquisition of the SANDF, Mr. S Shaik; Messrs M Sisulu, I
  A Scott and N Mashembye received motor vehicles from the prime contractors;
• that there was a link between the arms procurement and the Mpumalanga Parks Board promissory notes; and
• that the former Minister of Defence, Mr. J Modise, paid for shares in Conlog with a bribe received from a successful bidder.

Allegations substantiated and where action has been taken

In respect of our investigation into the allegation that persons including high-ranking officials involved in the overall acquisition process received various gifts from the bidders, we have found substantiation for this in certain instances. Action has been taken against those individuals whom we allege have unduly benefited in a corrupt manner from the acquisition process.

Searches in respect of various business premises and residences in South Africa, France and Mauritius were conducted after search warrants were obtained from a judge in South Africa and the foreign authorities. These searches related to the suspected commission of offences more pertinently in respect of African Defence Systems (Pty) Ltd, as subcontractor for the supply of the Corvette Combat Suite, Futuristic Business Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Thomson-CSF for the supply of an Integrated Logistic Support Services. Although the warrants were obtained on the basis of a reasonable belief that anything connected with the investigation could be found on the premises, it should be pointed out that this does not necessarily mean that the owners of the premises are suspects or have made themselves guilty of any crime.

Allegations that are the subject of ongoing investigation

The allegations that are still the subject of the ongoing investigation with a view to find evidence to support the suspicion of the commission of offences of corruption and/or fraud in specific areas are the following:  

• the shareholding of various role players in some of the companies, which benefited from the overall acquisition process;
• the receipt of gifts by role players in the acquisition process (apart from those already charged);
• the undue payments to certain successful subcontractors for the supply of various services and/or programmes; and
• the conflict of interest in respect of various role players in the acquisition process.

D. Conclusion

Madam Speaker, in conclusion I wish to remark on some of the findings and to bring matters into focus.

It is evident from the investigation that the perception of widespread corruption within the Government is without justification. Whilst there may be certain individuals and department officials who used their positions to derive some form of benefit from the acquisition process, which might render them criminally liable, the integrity of the Government and its institutions is unquestionable.

There have been a number of allegations from newspapers and informers, which proved to be baseless. These have been followed-up, but no substantiation for them could be found.

Also, a number of individuals have been linked in some way or the other to some of the allegations. The investigation has shown that the suggested links are without merit and the individuals are being cleared of impropriety and criminal conduct.

The area of conflict of interest of government officials is cause for concern and viewed as extremely serious. There seem to be indications that certain officials have found themselves in incompatible positions, which might have led to the perception that the credibility of the acquisition process has been compromised in specific instances. These instances form the basis of some of the allegations we are pursuing. I wish to add that we will be taking action within the next 24 hours.

The issue of conflict of interest of government officials as displayed during the acquisition process requires in-depth consideration. There is evidently a need for legislative measures to address situations where conflict of interest might amount to a breach of duty and to regulate the post-employment activities of officials.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Honourable President, the Minister of Justice and the Minister for Safety and Security for their unrestrained commitment and support for an independent and vigorous investigation, and their moral support in difficult times experienced during the investigation.

I want to thank those who worked tirelessly and most times throughout the night to ensure that the report is tabled timeously. They have certainly gone beyond the call of duty.

I thank you.

http://www.polity.org.za/html/govdocs/speeches/2001/sp1115b.html