Press statement: Outcome of press briefing by Andrew Feinstein and Hennie van Vuuren

Paul Holden and I have cooperated with the Arms Procurement Commission since its inception in the hope that it would finally reveal the full truth of the notorious Arms Deal that will ultimately cost the South African taxpayer around R70-billion.

From early on in its existence I offered to assist the Commission in any way I could. Members of the research team asked me to introduce them to prosecutors and others working on investigations related to the Arms Deal in a number of countries, which I did willingly. I met with two senior team members when they came to the UK and again helped them with contact details for people in the UK and Europe that they wished to meet.

Paul and I made a substantial submission to the Commission, including a wide range of documents identifying irregularities in the contracts on which the Arms Deal was based. There were so many documents that we had to send them to the Arms Procurement Commission on a disc, rather than email them.

We were somewhat bemused when the Commission’s chairperson stated in a letter to Terry Crawford-Brown, that they had seen no evidence of wrong-doing. This seemed to judge the matters before all evidence had been read or heard.

Talk of a 'second agenda', as senior members of the Commission staff resigned, raised further concerns. I personally experienced the ANC's many efforts to neuter any meaningful investigation into the deal while I was an MP and after my resignation from Parliament.

We were then told that we would be needed to give evidence early last year. The date for this was changed regularly until, finally, we were informed that we would only give evidence sometime in late 2014 and that evidence leaders would not be permitted to meet with us until then.

My concern with this decision and the corollary to have only government people give evidence in Phase 1 of the hearings and not on the numerous corruption allegations, is that we have many criticisms of the rationale for the Arms Deal and the way this rationale was realised. We should have had the opportunity to put these concerns to those who have appeared and we assume that some of the key people that have or still will give evidence in this first phase will be recalled in Phase 2 when allegations of corruption are heard.

However, unlike the government and the arms companies who won the multi-billion rand contracts, we have very limited resources at our disposal. We are extremely grateful to LHR and Advocate Anna-Marie de Vos who have agreed to assist us but the task remains a Herculean one. Paul and I cannot fly from London regularly to cross-examine witnesses. And crucially the flow of witness statements and accompanying documentation from the Commission has been very uneven. We are expected to receive a statement, often without crucial related documents, and decide immediately whether to cross-examine the witness or not, at very short notice.

The questioning of witnesses by the Commission itself has so far been inadequate, failing to raise myriad pertinent issues and allowing statements to go largely unchallenged.

These issues came to a head with the appearance of former minister Alec Erwin recently. Erwin gave evidence just days after the Department of Trade and Industry issued a report confirming the economic offsets (or benefits) from the deal have been an unmitigated failure, undermining constant government exhortations about the economic benefits that the deal would bring.

We were very keen to cross-examine Mr Erwin but were stymied from doing so as the contracts on which these offsets were based remain hidden from public view. Instead of doing everything possible to have this crucial information, which in no way threatens national security or defence, disclosed, the Commission claimed no one wanted to cross examine Mr Erwin.

Instead the APC expressed indignation that we might have access to some classified documents, ignoring that I had had access to such documents as an MP and the reality that many of them have been in the public domain for many years and written about extensively around the world.

It is a key characteristic of the global arms trade, which I research, that information that in no way threatens national security but often involved malfeasance and corruption, is kept secret by claims of national security sensitivity.

In addition, leaked documents and reports are the very foundation upon which whistle-blowing, investigative reporting and truth-telling are often based.

The Commission, in fulfilling its very important mandate paid for by taxpayer money, should be doing everything in its power to ensure that any information that can shed light on the Arms Deal is brought to its attention. (Hennie will speak more to this).

A number of people who have been critical of the Commission, are questioning whether they should even cooperate with it any more.

It is our view that the Commission should be given the opportunity to fulfill its mandate to the people of South Africa, that it should repay the taxpayer with the full, unfettered truth of the Arms Deal, so that those who have unwittingly paid for it will finally know what has become of their tens of billions of rands, some of which may still be recouped.

Anything less will be a betrayal of the people of South Africa.