Arms deal critics lose faith in inquiry, decline to testify

Three prominent critics of South Africa’s multibillion-rand arms deal have withdrawn their names from the Seriti commission witness list, saying the inquiry is "no longer salvageable" and is being used to discredit crucial witnesses to endorse the state’s version of events.

Former African National Congress (ANC) MP Andrew Feinstein, with arms deal critics Hennie van Vuuren and Paul Holden, said at a media briefing in Pretoria on Thursday that they had told the commission they would not testify before it.

The three will now be joined by civil society groups in calling for the dissolution of the commission and for "unfettered" criminal probes based on evidence against individuals who benefited from the controversial R70bn deal.

The move is the latest blow to perceptions of the commission’s integrity. Others have included several resignations, the latest of which were two evidence leaders last month.

The commission, chaired by Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Willie Seriti, was appointed by President Jacob Zuma three years ago to probe alleged corruption, impropriety and irregularity in the arms deal.

It is now in its second phase, examining allegations of fraud and corruption. The first phase was aimed at establishing the rationale behind acquiring arms. This saw former government heavyweights testify, including former finance minister Trevor Manuel and former president Thabo Mbeki.

Mr Holden said on Thursday a meeting with the commission’s evidence leaders last month had confirmed long-standing fears that key documents and evidence would be excluded from the commission. He said this illustrated "serious and fatal concerns" that the commission would not only fail to properly investigate the arms deal, but intended to discredit critics.

Mr Holden said indications from Judge Seriti were that he was not interested in hearing evidence unless the witness was its author. Mr Holden said the commission had failed to provide access to relevant documents as well as information gained from evidence leaders who had resigned.

The three critics, who were represented by rights group Lawyers for Human Rights, also made available a letter from the commission dated July 10, addressing their requests for access to documents.

The letter, written by the commission’s legal head, endorsed a concern of the Department of Defence that their request for documents was not based on a need for information to support their testimony. The department and the commission’s concern was that the request would result in "parallel investigations". But the three rejected this Thursday.

They were scheduled to begin testifying earlier this month but the programme was rescheduled after requests from some of the witnesses for more time to prepare were granted. Mr Holden said the subpoena issued to witnesses in January last year had since expired.

Constitutional law expert Shadrack Gutto said failing to abide by a subpoena could lead to a witness being held in contempt. The commission could not be reached for comment on Thursday.