Commission awaits 'sensitive documents'

The commission was adjourned just over a week ago to give the department time to declassify the documents, which are deemed appropriate to the investigation into the controversial arms deal.

At stake is the integrity of the commission and respect for its chairman, Judge Willie Seriti. Many people have already written it off on grounds that it is likely to be used by the government to finally whitewash the arms deal.

The attempt by the department and Armscor to exclude "classified, sensitive documents" has posed the first significant hurdle for the commission. Judge Seriti has refused to accept that certain technical documents on military weapons were classified and inaccessible to his inquiry. The commission was adjourned to give "Armscor ample time to get documents declassified" by the Department of Defence.

Postponements

The lengthy postponement is the second attempt by the commission to get Armscor to release the documents. There was another week's postponement before Armscor witnesses took the stand.

These delays are eating into the little time the commission has left to deliver a preliminary report to the president before its mandate expires at the end of January.

The government's earlier attempt, in 2001, to investigate the R43bn arms package through a joint investigation team composed of auditor-general Shauket Fakie, public protector Selby Baqwa and national director of public prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka was criticised and discredited, with some members of Parliament resigning, citing political interference.

When the Seriti commission began its public hearings on 9 August, it was already racing against its own deadline.

Opposing parties still to testify

The commission is still busy with the first phase of its investigation and is dealing with evidence from government departments whose ministers comprised the cabinet cluster that had overseen the deal from inception to procurement.

The commission's second phase, which will deal with the evidence and presentations of parties opposing the arms procurement, is likely to need an extension of the deadline. For that to happen, President Jacob Zuma would have to agree.

The evidence leader, Sammy Lebala SC, asked last week whether Armscor's project manager for submarines, Rob Vermeulen, was shortchanging the commission and depriving it of some information.

Vermeulen said if he divulged information such as the maximum dive depth of a submarine, it would compromise the South African Navy's fighting capability and reveal a product's characteristics, which could in turn be used by others.

"What I'm merely doing here is holding back certain information mainly of a technical nature which would compromise both the navy and defence industry."

Another point Vermeulen raised was that the type of submarines SA had bought were also sold to other navies and he believed neither the shipbuilder nor other navies would like that information to be divulged.

"I don't believe that it's relevant to the outcome of the findings of this commission to reveal information of that nature," said Vermeulen.

Judge Seriti berated Armscor, saying: "It's a call that must be made by the commission and not by Armscor. I will be much more comfortable if I know exactly what they say that we are not entitled to see."

If the department and Armscor continue to resist, the commission is bound to be dragged into costly court battles that will test its powers. This could lead to deadlines for a preliminary report being missed and the commission subsequently over-running its time frame and budget.

Source: Business Day via I-Net Bridge