Questions mount in Gupta landing debacle

THE Presidency has reacted with fury to suggestions that President Jacob Zuma was personally involved in allowing the Gupta family’s private jet to land at Waterkloof Air Force Base.

The response follows the publication last week of details of a sworn affidavit lodged before an inquiry which is to decide whether air force officers involved in the matter should face prosecution in a military court.

Lt-Col Christine Anderson swore under oath that the “number one” who ordered the landing to go ahead was indeed Zuma.

Anderson said the name of the president was not used in communications for security reasons.

The initial investigation into the irregular landing was told by then head of state protocol Bruce Koloane that “number one” wanted the Gupta’s to be allowed to land their wedding guests at the base. He has since retracted this, saying he had lied.

Apparently Koloane has since returned to work after being demoted and fined two months’ salary.

So the reward for using the president’s name in vain and for lying was to continue in the employ of the state, no doubt on a very good salary.

Anderson, whose career in the air force is on the line, looks to be a highly personable individual. She also clearly has plenty of experience in the air force, judging from the service ribbons on her uniform.

She would have known that to allow the landing to go ahead would spell big trouble if it got out. As it was, a reporting team on a chance visit to the airport observed and reported on the landing. The question needing to be answered is why a professional officer would knowingly break the rules?

An order from the commander-inchief perhaps? Number one?

A presidential spokesman has said that simply because an allegation was made in a sworn affidavit that did not make it the truth.

That is quite right. I am sure that plenty of people in either civil litigation or in criminal proceedings make false statements in sworn statements or in testimony before a court.

But again the questions mount up. Why would Anderson make her situation even worse by saying that “number one” was Zuma? I assume that there are many serious disadvantages for her, should she be dishonourably discharged from the air force.

If the reports are true that Koloane is back at work, then the situation is outrageous. The reward for dishonesty is continued employment while the reward for maybe obeying an order from the president is to be pursued with great vigour in military inquiries?

Remember, the Justice Department investigation into the matter found that it was only officials who were responsible for the illegal landing. But now one of those officials is off the hook while the others are still in deep trouble. They stand accused of using the president’s name to get the whole thing to happen.

Were they afraid that, if they did not allow the good friends of the president to land at Waterkloof, it would have an effect on their careers going forward?

The only comment of any significance that Zuma has made on the issue has been that people drop his name all over the place.

We really do need a further investigation.

Perhaps Public Protector Thuli Madonsela could reconsider her decision not to investigate through lack of evidence. There is now new evidence.