Sadly, that is what's expected from an African government, but the Seriti Commission's clean bill of health was all above board, writes Thabo Mbeki.
Johannesburg - A few days ago, President Zuma released the report of the judicial “commission of inquiry into allegations of fraud, corruption, impropriety or irregularity in the Strategic Defence Procurement Packages (SDPP)”.
The commission has stated that no evidence was presented to it proving that any fraud, corruption or impropriety had taken place during the defence procurement process and neither had it found any such misdemeanour through its own investigations.
However, some in our country have spoken out against the findings of the commission, charging that it was nothing more than a “whitewash”, a “cover-up” for those who allegedly carried out corrupt practices.
Almost 15 years ago, in 2001, another investigation of the very same SDPP had come to exactly the same conclusion that there had been no fraud, corruption or impropriety in defence procurement. That investigation was carried out by a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) composed of the auditor general, the National Prosecuting Authority and the public protector.
Even then, some in our country denounced the finding of the JIT as a “cover-up” in exactly the same way as has now happened with regard to the judicial commission.
This confirms that there are some in our country who are determined to ensure that at all cost, the perception is sustained among our people and the people of the world that the government president Nelson Mandela led was corrupt.
Let me now present some truths about the judicial commission. It was appointed to investigate various matters relating to the SDPP and nothing else.
Through the SDPP, our government signed contracts with a number of European companies. These have been identified as the primary contracts, being the only contracts our government signed with the SDPP supplier companies. These are the contracts the judicial commission had to examine.
There were also secondary contracts. These were contracts entered into by the primary contracting companies with those companies they subcontracted to provide elements of the weapons systems they, the primary contractors, were obliged to supply to our government. Our government was not involved in any way with these subcontracts, these being exclusively a matter for the companies concerned. Accordingly, the judicial commission, as well, had neither the task, the need and reason nor the legal possibility to investigate these subcontracts, and therefore it did not.
The body which approved the weapons purchases, and therefore the primary contracts, was the cabinet on the basis of recommendations it received from a cabinet subcommittee it had constituted, known as the Inter Ministerial Committee (IMC). I chaired the IMC from when I was deputy president. It also included the then ministers of defence, trade and industry, finance and public enterprises.
The IMC itself received and examined recommendations from the subcommittees of officials which process the detailed matters relating to the SDPP. These subcommittees reported only to the IMC.
Commenting on the procedures that were followed with regard to the SDPP, and acting on behalf of the IMC, I made the submission to the judicial commission that if any corruption had occurred which informed the decisions on the SDPP, the blame would lie first and foremost with the IMC and, secondly, with the cabinet.
Accordingly, the allegation that has been made that the findings of the judicial commission constitute a “cover-up” means that it would be the then members of the IMC and the national cabinet who are thus being protected, including those who are no longer with us, these being Mandela and ministers Joe Modise and Stella Sigcau.
The judicial commission invited many people to make presentations to it consistent with its mandate, including those called “whistle-blowers”. Some of these “whistle-blowers” did indeed make presentations to the judicial commission. They were also subjected to cross-examination. Similarly, the members of the IMC who are still alive, myself included, with the exception of Jeff Radebe, who was not called, also made presentations to the commission and were subjected to sustained cross-examination.
The relevant government departments, including defence, trade and industry, and finance, also made written and oral submissions, and were similarly subjected to cross-examination.
The police officers who had investigated the allegations of fraud and corruption concerning the SDPP, as part of both the Scorpions and the Hawks, also made their written and oral presentations and were also subjected to cross-examination.
So did the companies which it was alleged were tainted with corruption, except one, make their own written and oral submissions and subjected themselves to cross-examination.
Unfortunately, three of the “whistle-blowers” refused to appear before the commission to submit whatever information they had which could have assisted the commission. These were Andrew Feinstein, Paul Holden and Hennie van Vuuren.
Fortunately, the commission honoured its commitment to keep its hearings public, thus to ensure the greatest possible transparency. In addition, the commission transcribed the oral submissions and cross-examinations and posted these on its website.
The transcripts will show that the corruption allegations which the “whistle-blowers” propagated for more than a decade were discussed in detail, exactly to establish the truth or otherwise of these allegations. The readers will establish this for themselves, based on the very words of the “whistle-blowers” themselves, that none of them provided any concrete facts of any kind to substantiate the allegations of corruption they had made.
In this context, you, our readers, will also learn about the work done by the Scorpions and the Hawks to investigate the alleged corruption concerning the SDPP, and their findings in this regard.
The “whistle-blowers”and others who have denounced the judicial commission and its findings have made a strident song and dance about the fact that Tony Yengeni and Schabir Shaik were found guilty by our courts on charges which the “whistle-blowers” and their friends allege concerned the SDPP or what they call “the arms deal”.
What is the truth about these two matters?
Yengeni had absolutely nothing to do with the SDPP. He had received a discount for a new vehicle he had purchased and tried to hide this fact from Parliament, thus violating the Code of Ethics.
The “whistle-blowers” try desperately to bring in the SDPP in this context because they allege that the company that sold Yengeni the vehicle had something to do with one or another of the primary contracting companies.
The IMC and the officials never dealt with this company and had no knowledge of its involvement in any of the primary contracts.
Indeed, throughout the Yengeni court case, no reference whatsoever was made to the SDPP, since his case had no relationship with the SDPP.
Shaik was convicted on the basis of evidence presented about actions in which he had been engaged concerning the French company Thales, which was a subcontractor to the German Frigate Consortium, the entity with which our government entered into an agreement as a primary contracting company.
Whatever Shaik and Thales did had absolutely no relationship with and had no impact of any kind on the processing, negotiation and conclusion of the SDPP, the matter which the judicial commission had to investigate.
The “whistle-blowers” and their supporters have also made a similar song and dance about a confidential but leaked Debevoise & Plimpton report (D&P report) which was commissioned by MAN Ferrostaal, the lead company in the German Submarine Consortium, the primary contractor which signed an agreement with our government to supply the required submarines.
This report suggested that Ferrostaal might have paid bribes to secure the contract to supply the submarines. The judicial commission prohibited the submission of this report, arguing that established law in our country prohibited such submission unless the owner of this confidential report, Ferrostaal, specifically agreed to lift the confidential restriction of access to the report.
The “whistle-blowers” insisted then, as they continue to do, that the judicial commission should have allowed the D&P report to be presented despite the fact that this would have been illegal, (but) the commission flatly refused to break the law in this regard.
The commission did indeed study the report and found no evidence in it pointing to anybody having engaged in corrupt practice.
The “whistle-blowers” argue that it was wrong for the commission to insist that all witnesses who allege corruption should speak only about matters of which they had personal knowledge. The commission said no to the rumour-mongers.
It is very instructive that the “whistle-blowers”, especially the “no-show” trio of Feinstein, Holden and Van Vuuren, continue to insist that, among others, they would have considered the commission as legitimate if it had given them the space to appear before it to communicate unsubstantiated allegations.
This trio will do a great service to the nation if they do indeed approach our courts to apply for the legal review they have threatened.
For many years while I served as president, some in our country made the call with great insistence that I should appoint a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate what was and has been called, using insulting and pejorative language, “the arms deal”.
Consistently, I refused to accede to this demand. However, as was his right, President Zuma decided to accede to the public demand (for an inquiry).
Happily, the judicial commission has now provided the nation with valuable information which might otherwise not have been available.
What remained unsaid, but is an essential component part of the argument about the allegedly ineluctable corruption in “arms deals”, is, what else would you expect of an African government?
* This is an edited version of a response former president Thabo Mbeki made on his foundation's Facebook site.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.
The Star