Inauspicious start for arms inquiry

Dear Corruption Watch

What do you think of the judicial commission of inquiry into the arms deal? Is it likely to uncover the corruption that occurred during the arms deal, or is it just another way for those who benefited to cover it up? — Interested Observer

Dear Interested Observer

At the level of principle, the president’s establishment of the commission is to be welcomed. The arms deal has been shrouded in allegations of the most serious corruption almost from the moment it was concluded.

Many of those allegations were made against senior members of the ruling party. President Jacob Zuma is one of those potentially implicated.

Corruption Watch believes that until the allegations are properly and openly interrogated and the truth becomes known about the circumstances of the arms deal, who benefited and how, we will not be able to address the problems that it has caused and move forward as a country.

In our view, it is probable that the corruption that dogged the arms deal was made possible by insufficient procurement controls and enforcement of criminal law.

Addressing these problems is not simply a matter of rooting out those “bad apples” who benefited in the hope that those that remain will not be corruptible.

To address the structural and systemic challenges and take appropriate legal action against individuals who benefited, it is essential to have a transparent and rigorous inquiry into the circumstances of the deal.

The commission is therefore a good idea in principle. However, we have grave concerns about whether the commission will be able to achieve these purposes.

There are a number of factors that give rise to significant concern:

In January, a senior researcher resigned from the commission, claiming that its chair, Judge Willie Seriti of the Supreme Court of Appeal, had a “second agenda”;

In February, another legal researcher resigned from the commission, reportedly saying she was doing so to retain her integrity;

Last week, one of the commissioners, Judge Francis Legodi, resigned without giving reasons. The media quoted sources close to the process as saying Legodi was unhappy with the secrecy surrounding the workings of the commission and Seriti’s management style; and

The commission appears to have expended its allocated R40million budget even before the hearings have begun. It reportedly placed two advocates on retainer despite that fact that it is not yet facing any litigation.

These difficulties have raised questions about the legitimacy of the commission.

When it comes to inquiries into allegations of corruption, transparency and accountability are absolutely vital. Secrecy and confidentiality allow corruption to flourish and be swept under the carpet. The maxim that justice must both be done and seen to be done is especially true in this context. If there is no public confidence in the commission’s workings and findings, it will not be able to clear the air.

A commission that is not seen to be credible will simply be a waste of money, because it will be seen as a whitewashing exercise.

In fact, a commission that lacks credibility may be worse than a waste of money. It may set us back, because it distracts us from taking other effective measures to combat corruption while creating the false impression that steps are being taken to address corruption.

So although the commission is a good idea in principle, it may harm the fight against corruption if it is not properly executed.

We hope that the commission will be able to overcome the difficulties it has already encountered and become the transparent, rigorous and credible inquiry South Africa so desperately needs it to be.