Arms deal will dog Zuma to the end

SIXTEEN years since it first became a major corruption scandal, the arms deal controversy simply refuses to go away. And it shouldn’t. Not when there are still so many questions that remain unanswered.

When President Jacob Zuma announced in 2011 that he was appointing a judicial commission of inquiry to probe corruption in connection with the multibillion-rand arms procurement deal, there was a glimmer of hope that the nation could finally put the matter — dubbed post-apartheid South Africa’s “original corruption sin” — to rest.

Yes, it was troubling that Zuma — who was deeply implicated in the scandal, and therefore conflicted — was the one appointing the commission and issuing its terms of reference. But he is the president and the constitution vests such powers only in the head of state.

So, flawed as the process was, most people accepted it — believing it would at least allow all allegations to be ventilated and tested in public.

But the outcome of the Seriti commission left a bitter taste in many a mouth, with critics saying the process was stage-managed to shield Zuma and clear the state of any wrongdoing.

Instead of bringing closure on an issue that had troubled the country for so long, the process left many unanswered questions, prominent among them being why Zuma — so central to the issue — never took the stand.

Scepticism around the commission will now surely be further fuelled by allegations made by lawyer Ajay Sooklal, in an affidavit filed in the High Court in Pretoria, that Zuma asked him not to reveal damaging information about him to the commission.

Zuma’s office yesterday declined to comment on Sooklal’s sensational claims as the matter is now before the courts. The president has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in connection with the arms deal.

Sooklal’s allegations are serious and, if proved true, would mean that Zuma deliberately and illegally interfered with a process he had set up, at great cost to taxpayers, purportedly to establish the truth.

It is up to the courts to determine if Sooklal is telling the truth and, if indeed he is, if the findings of the commission should be set aside.

Nonetheless, the president should not — cannot — escape answering these allegations by merely citing court processes. He owes it to the nation to confirm or deny if he met Sooklal and whether he tried to persuade him not to testify about monies allegedly paid to Zuma by the French arms company Thales.

The president has so far succeeded in avoiding having to appear before a court to answer allegations of fraud and corruption relating to the arms deal. Much of this success has had to do with the fact that he is the president and therefore has massive state resources at his disposal.

Constitutionally, however, his term of office ends in two years. At that time he may find himself having to answer those questions.

And by then he may find a political administration, ANC-led or not, that has no appetite for shielding him from accountability.