Key issues not addressed: Heath
2001-11-17 01:32
Cape Town - Controversy still surrounded the arms deal process as
certain key questions were not addressed in the report released on Wednesday, Willem Heath, former head of the special anti-corruption unit, said on Friday.
He was commenting on the report by Auditor-General Shauket Fakie, National Director of Public Prosecutions Bulelani Ncguka and Public Protector, Selby Baqwa, which states that government has not acted unlawfully in the process followed, although it was found that some individuals had enriched themselves.
The anti-corruption unit was barred from taking part in the
investigation.
"The key question of whether the arms acquisition contracts are valid
has not been adequately answered. The recommendations for future deals are
important, but the team's primary task was to find out what happened, and
this task was not performed properly," he said.
How gross?
Heath wanted to know whether the irregularities committed were so gross
that it jeopardised the validity of the contracts.
He said it was of utmost importance that the criminal aspects of the
deal should be investigated, adding that the steps taken in that regard should be welcomed. He had questions, however, regarding the liability of the ministers involved.
"If you are the chief executive of a company, you are held accountable
for the mistakes made by the company." This did not seem to be the case with ministers, Heath said. "In most democracies, a minister would step down if irregularities were found in his department." Heath was of the opinion that a minister could not merely shrug off his responsibilities.
When asked whether he thought the investigation team had completed their task successfully, Heath said it depended on what had been referred to them.
Vague
Several irregularities were pointed out, such as findings that the arms
acquisition process had not been followed to the letter, he said, but added
that the impact of these irregularities was, however, not ascertained.
Heath was also dissatisfied with the vague way in which the report dealt with the role played in the arms deal by former Defence Minister Joe Modise.
It was found that Modise was apparently involved in a company which
benefited from the purchase of arms. Heath was of the opinion that it was
the task of the investigation team to attain whether this had in fact been
the case.
Heath added that the finding on Modise's role promoted a negative
perception regarding a process which might otherwise have been in order. The investigation team's task was to ascertain whether the arms transaction had been above reproach, and this had not been done, he said.