The technique: Giving calumny a foothold

The rising crescendo of finger-pointing in the direction of President Mbeki over the arms matter is reminiscent of Rossini's comic opera "The Barber of Seville" which has been on the elite film circuit. It has Basilio singing:

Slurs and slander,
Like summer breezes,
Softly stirring,
Subdued and gentle,
Incidental, idle chatter,
Featherweight, of little matter,
Start with flimsy distant whispers barely heard.

And further:

Rumour, first absurd and silly,
Gains momentum as it travels willy nilly.
Starting out in tiny ripples,
Soon the volume doubles, triples
And the murmur hits the firmament,
Expanding with each word.

From a subtle innuendo
To a gradual crescendo,
Like the galloping of horses,
On the course it gathers forces,
With a hammerstroke of thunder
Tearing giant oaks asunder;
Flashing, crashing, little wonder
That it freezes to the bone;
Bursting out and overflowing,
With a fury ever growing,
Building up to an explosion,
Like a storm upon the ocean;
Like a tempest or tornado,
Like a charging light brigade, oh
See the monster fully grown!

A full briefing on the arms matter was held on 6 August 2008. (See full transcript.)

Questions and answers

What follows is a series of questions and answers relating mainly to current allegations and themes in public discourse, rather than a comprehensive treatment of the whole procurement matter.

QUESTION: Why is government refusing to appoint a judicial inquiry?

ANSWER: It is widely known criminal proceedings are pending in court, and these must be allowed to run their course, whatever the outcome. If new information or new leads emerge that deserve investigation and prosecution, this will be done. Allegations of criminality are the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies. Any idea of having a judicial inquiry would have to be based on the production of compelling reasons to depart from the ordinary process of justice running its course, rather than indulging ourselves with generalized allegations and innuendo.  

QUESTION: Amnesty or pardon for all who admit to wrong-doing over the arms transactions have been suggested as politically acceptable ways out of the present situation. "Trade amnesty for truth," says one editorial comment (Sunday Times, 23 March 2008). A commentator speaks unspecifically of "state-sanctioned embezzlement of public funds", and of a situation able to be resolved by "forgiving the arms deal perpetrators", i.e. by way of amnesty (Xolela Mangcu, Business Day, 27 March 2008). So, in view of the serious political implications of what is happening now, why not consider that?

ANSWER: Pardon is a Presidential prerogative and axiomatically it implies prior guilt and conviction. Without that, it is irrelevant.

Amnesty - as, for instance, we have experienced with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission - is a different process which does not necessarily imply charge in court but requires full admission of all facts. Offering amnesty now over the arms issue would in effect be a reward for any who betrayed their jobs and indulged in criminal activity, and it would moreover be grossly unfair for those who have already been punished for their roles in other corruption or related offences. Critically, it would set a bad precedent and undermine the rule of law. Besides, the cloud of suspicion, rumour and innuendo will be left hanging over the process. The law should take its course.

QUESTION: Did South Africa need the new defence equipment that is being purchased?

ANSWER: This is largely a security-related matter of judgment. In 1998 Parliament took the view, after a thorough Defence Review and with the support of almost all parties, that the country did need the equipment.

Instead of dealing with our defence needs secretly and piecemeal, as had so often happened in the past, there was an open process leading ultimately to a comprehensive package decided on at top level in Cabinet, in line with Parliament's view of what democratic SA needed with regard to security, protection of marine resources, international obligations including peacekeeping.

Reference to news reports over the years will show that we have laid the foundation to meet these objectives, notably in marine resource protection and our growing peacekeeping challenges in theatres in Africa and beyond. Whatever the perceived threat to our national security at any given time, real peace requires the capacity to defend our freedoms and our democratic statehood, if necessary by arms.

QUESTION: With regard to implementation, what equipment has been delivered?

ANSWER:  Delivery is broadly on track.

Corvettes:
By the end of 2004 all four of the Corvettes had arrived in South Africa. After being fitted with the local Combat Management Suite as part of the Defence Industrial Participation Programme, SAS Amatola, Isandlwana, Spioenkop and Mendi were handed over to the SA Navy and are currently operationally deployed.

The Corvettes will enhance South Africa's ability to protect its coastline and marine resources, to enhance its contribution to peace-keeping operations on the continent and to partner other countries such as India and Brazil whose navies operate in southern Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Fitted with cutting-edge technology, the Corvettes will afford young South Africans of all races interested in a career in the Navy an opportunity to acquire skills while serving the nation.

Submarines:
All three acquired submarines have been handed over to the South African Navy. The defence spokesperson (see transcript of 6 August media briefing) has emphasised that military strategy and the Department of Defence business plan lay down that at any given time defence will operate with two submarines.   

Light Utility Helicopters:
To date, 23 of the 30 helicopters had been delivered to the South African Air Force, of which eight were manufactured in Italy. The other 15 were manufactured under licence to Agusta in South Africa.

Maritime Helicopters:
Four Agusta Westland Super Lynx helicopters were handed over to the SA Air Force in February 2008, to complement the surveillance capabilities of the Corvettes. The integration onto the Corvettes is currently underway.

Lead-in fighter trainer aircraft:
The South African Air Force (SAAF) has already received 22 out of 24 Hawk 120 lead-in fighter trainer aircraft.

Advanced Light Fighter Aircraft:
After an initial delay in the delivery of the first four Gripens, due to a request from the SAAF for the installation and integration of an additional radio, delivery is on schedule. One aircraft delivered in 2006 is in use by the SAAF - another was delivered for testing. Another four dual seaters are to be delivered by December this year.

QUESTION: What has, to date, been the fate of the industrial offsets, or the industrial participation programme. Has this worked?

ANSWER: This programme was designed to ensure domestic economic benefits and to support the development of SA industry by effective use of the instruments of Government procurement. The Industrial Participation Programme became obligatory as far back as September 1996, and was applicable to all Government and state-owned enterprises.

In the context of the Strategic Defence Procurement there were two parts to the industrial participation - National Industrial Participation (NIP) and Defence Industrial Participation (DIP). Considerable progress has been made in implementing both of these industrial participation programmes. They are divided into phases each of which has milestones that must be met.

Defence Industrial Participation:
By March 2008, the overall target of the Defence Industrial Participation obligations due by then had been fulfilled - the value of the actual performance was 101% of the contracted target by that date, amounting to R12 506 million credits. What was achieved by that date amounted to 83% of the total DIP obligation.

The R12 506 million DIP credits awarded by 31 March 2008 consisted of:

• Local sales & exports: R8 178 million
• Technology transfers: R4 072 million
• Investments: R256 million

The progress of the six projects as at 31 March 2008 was as follows:

Where manufacturers appear to be behind schedule they have either submitted sufficient claims, or recovery plans, to address these shortfalls. In such instances, the reductions of their DIP Bank Guarantees are held back, which has a cost implication, until the particular milestones are met. Penalties, as per agreement, will only be applied at the end of the obligation periods, if the final milestones are not met.

Details of progress as at 31 March 2008 will be contained in Armscor's Annual Report 2007/08, which will also be presented to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Defence later in the year.

Based on information provided by the local industry, it is estimated that between 5 000 and 6 000 jobs were either retained or created within the SA Defence Related Industry over the last seven years directly related to DIP projects/orders, as confirmed by the industry.

As the acquisitions have arrived, for testing or assembly or fitting with their technical systems and eventually for training and service, and as the industrial participation programmes have been implemented, the opportunities being created for young South Africans have become visible in a practical way.

New vessels and aircraft have meant new young recruits into the Navy and Air Force, mainly black youth - African, Coloured and Indian - for whom the country's armed forces were once the source of terror but for whom service is now a matter of pride to themselves and their parents, and a path to training and acquisition of high-level skills in the use of the most modern technology.

As stated in an Armscor Annual Report:
"The key objective of the DIP Programme is to contribute towards the sustainability of the South African defence industry. In many respects this objective has been met. Despite an overall decline in aerospace/defence markets since 2000, much of the South African defence industry has generally been sustained through the work that has resulted from the DIP offset programmes."

The DIPP provided an important lifeline to tide many companies over in a very difficult period. Many of these companies are now firmly entrenched in the supply chains of global players in the Defence environment.

Many capabilities (i.e. technology transfer, process improvements and skills training) have been established in the country, which we did not have before. This contributes not only to the sustainability and growth of the industry, but also ensures cost effectiveness through life support solutions to the South African National Defence Force (SANDF).

[ Top ]

QUESTION:   Can arms purchases ever be negotiated without kickbacks - and here one has in mind previous controversies and alleged kickbacks in other countries?

ANSWER: It is known in the arms industry that "commissions" can be mere camouflage for bribes and kickbacks. Democratic governments the world over increasingly seek to contain these activities which are undermining of public morality, are inflationary and destructively criminal. The history of arms purchases over many years will confirm the need for vigilance, which attitude the SA Government welcomes. It is therefore appreciated that there might be a measure of cynicism "in the trade" and in the media about assertions that the process for primary contracts has been above board (Editor Mondli Makhanya of the Sunday Times, on 6 Jan 2008 went as far as to respond that "gales of laughter would roar through the circles of those who know that no arms deal ever goes down without palms being greased"). It should be stressed that our whole process was driven, at the highest level, by a Cabinet committee headed by the then Deputy President (who became President), and that no one person was able to determine what should and what should not be purchased; and that the investigation by the Auditor-General, the Public Protector and the National Directorate for Public Prosecutions (NDPP) came to the following conclusion after due inquiry:

"No evidence was found of any improper or unlawful conduct by the Government. The irregularities and improprieties ... point to the conduct of certain officials of the government departments involved and cannot ... be ascribed to the President or Ministers involved in their capacity as members of the Ministers' Committee or Cabinet. There are therefore no grounds to suggest that the Government's contracting position is flawed."

There may well have been individuals and bodies who used or attempted to use their positions improperly to get personal benefit, but this would have been at the level of the secondary or sub-contracting processes - where the main contractor seeks the support of other businesses to deliver on the main transactions with government. That is what the Scorpions' original investigations were originally all about. They were not about the Strategic Defence Procurement Package per se and Government's agreements regarding the main contracts. If links can be shown between the sub-contracts and the main contracts in ways that might implicate Government figures, at any level, those with this information have not only the opportunity but the duty to report this to the appropriate authorities, and due action will be taken. Similarly, if they can show, or point successfully to a reasonable suspicion that any Government figures had direct interaction with any of the bidders which was in conflict with the bidding procedure, beyond the usual and numerous courtesy calls that one would expect in relation to high personages, there would, similarly, be due process. More particularly, if it can be shown that such interaction led to any personal benefit in return for favours, there would be a duty on those making the allegation to report and substantiate this, at least prima facie, so that the relevant authorities can act on such complaint. In the absence of this, which is the case at present, it is suggested that critics should refrain from seeking, for whatever reason, gratuitously to stain the characters of people whose reputations have always been associated with the integrity and reputation of a democratic government that fights corruption and criminality.

QUESTION: Why the renewed fuss over the arms purchases?

ANSWER: This is a matter for speculation. Those behind it, especially in the media and other walks of public life, would know. Surely, the grounds for suspicion should, with all due speed and detail, be placed before police, prosecutors and courts or laid to rest. Media should be careful not to be fed "bum steers", indulged in for dubious reasons. There are critics who, as pacifists, are in principle opposed to any arms purchases. So be it. They must be respected, even if differed from. There are others who see political gain or notoriety - or even enhanced circulation or viewing - in keeping the matter in the public eye. There are others (possibly a matter of sour grapes?) who may have missed out on the bids and would like to see the Government's decisions reversed. There may be some who see a broadening of the issue as a useful means to draw attention away from this or that individual or body facing legal or other challenge. But let us not, as a nation, allow untested, uncorroborated allegations to undermine our reputation and capacity to do business internationally - let alone sully characters locally.

QUESTION: Was the official inquiry's report (by the Joint Investigating team, or JIT, submitted to Parliament in November 2001) tampered with before publication?

ANSWER: The allegation that the executive tampered with the Auditor-General's report (which found government's contracting process was not flawed) is based on a comparison between the AG's draft report and his final report. It is common knowledge that audit reports do go through various drafts as a matter of course - but this should not be confused with politically-motivated or self-protective steps to tamper with the findings of an independent inquiry, as happened in the old, discredited SA order - for instance over tampering with the Information Scandal report when certain very chilling words uttered by a security chief were omitted.

In its routine auditing of books of government departments, for instance, the Office of the Auditor-General conducts investigations by going through documents and interviewing some staff. Then they prepare what is referred to as a Management Letter, and meet senior managers to clarify issues. If on any of the draft findings there are factual matters that need correction, this is further pursued by the AGO and such corrections made. This in our view is the standard relationship between an auditor and "auditee".

Related to this is the logic in the Promotion of Access to Information Act which excludes records that contain "a preliminary, working or other draft of an official of a public body"; subject to administrative fairness directly affecting a citizen's well-being. This is precisely because a draft is just that, a draft (defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as a "preliminary version of a piece of writing".)

The question is: Did any amendments materially change the outcome of the inquiry or not? The actual amendments cited in this matter in the media did not affect the material conclusion, and the Auditor-General, when given the opportunity to respond, stood by his final report and refuted the suggestions that he had bowed to political pressure. Regarding claims that the final report omitted matter included in the drafts, he explained that some things were omitted because they were still under investigation but had nevertheless been taken into account in reaching the conclusions of the report, as was indeed made explicit in the report itself. Others were omitted because they were found not to be substantiated after further investigation. He said that none of the changes materially affected the overall conclusion of the report.

QUESTION: Why was Judge Willem Heath's anti-corruption Special Investigative Unit not permitted to join this JIT inquiry?

ANSWER: It is surely something of a reflection on the offices of three independent agencies, the Auditor-General, the Public Protector and the NDPP, to assume that, without Judge Heath's assistance, they were incapable of undertaking an inquiry of this nature. More importance should be attached to the decisive finding of the Constitutional Court on the inappropriateness of a judge being involved in investigations of this nature and the consequent invalidity of Heath's appointment as head of the Special Investigations Unit. The proposals to inlcude Judge Heath were made despite the Constituional Court having made this judgment. (See South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers V Heath and Others 2001 (1) Sa 883 (Cc) 2001 (1) Sa P883; and Letter to President by Minster of Justice and Constituional Development and Statement by DG:Presidency on Heath & SIU.)

QUESTION: Is the Government not "dragging its heels", as alleged in the media and by politicians, in relation to requests by German and possibly United Kingdom investigators probing claims of bribes paid to SA officials and politicians?

ANSWER: No. The Government responded without undue delay, and, as is its right, sought additional information. So the ball lay in the German prosecutors' court. This was detailed in a statement by government (Statement by DoJ&CD on Mutual Legal Assistance). All such investigations are welcomed; and they will be processed in accordance with our laws and international obligations. Reportedly, these relate to commissions to lobbyists who in turn are supposed to have corrupted participants in the decision-making process. We do hope that, if such corrupt relationships existed, they will be uncovered and dealt with. In the event, in the German case, the investigation was abandoned by the Dusseldorf prosecutor, see below.

QUESTION:  What about the allegation that the tendering process for corvettes was reopened after then Deputy President Mbeki visited Germany, to open the way for a German bid despite the Navy's view that a Spanish company was better placed? ("Early on in the technical phase of the process to decide who would build the four ships required, there was an understanding in the navy that a Spanish company was best placed to meet the requirements. However after a visit to Germany by then Deputy President Mbeki, the tender was reopened." Andrew Feinstein. Sunday Times, March 23, 2008).

ANSWER: Feinstein is recycling a false claim made by Patricia de Lille in 2003, which was shown to be baseless by simple reference to the real facts. A statement by GCIS on De Lille's allegations on 4 September 2003 put the record straight, drawing on the report of the Joint Investigation Team.

These things were supposed to have happened in 1995. At that time the Defence Review, which is the basis of the SDP, had not been adopted. The Review, which was adopted only in 1997, dealt with such matters as force design and broad requirements of equipment; and it served as a basis for the acquisition process.

Indeed, as the JIT report records, there was an attempt on the part of the leadership of the SA Navy to acquire corvettes which was rejected by Cabinet in May/June 1995 as Cabinet was not yet ready to take decisions on the procurement, pending the Review. So far as government was concerned there was no decision then to acquire any such weapons nor was there any bidding or short list.

Far from being based on revelation of fact, the current allegations are the recycling of what has long been demonstrated to be baseless.

QUESTION: Even if totally innocent of any wrongdoing, is it not in the interests of the President, his Ministers and senior officials for him to "act decisively" - in the words of a politician recently (Eddie Trent, The Citizen, 17 March 2008) - to ensure that Presidential credibility and integrity, and the country's reputation, are not undermined?

ANSWER: There is nothing more decisive than allowing the law to run its even-handed course. Any residual issues referred from the JIT inquiry, or any new materially-relevant information received, will obviously be investigated and, if necessary, acted upon in accordance with our court rules and our sovereign Constitution. The President has, most recently in his reply to the State of the Nation debate but on numerous occasions, specifically committed his Government to reinforcing not weakening the fight against organized crime. We ask: What more can be expected from a President who has moreover shown that he scrupulously believes in and upholds the constitutional separation of powers between executive and judiciary? People who expect the President himself to launch prosecutions, issue or countermand warrants, order investigations and raids that invade such boundaries, or otherwise interfere with realms reserved for others, will wait in vain. But there is no doubt that the main damage to the country's reputation, referred to above, arises not from lack of decisive action on his part, but from the retailing of loose and unproven allegations that our government is not acting decisively against corruption.  

QUESTION: Did the ruling party in SA benefit from the arms transactions, and, if so, was this with the knowledge of the President, Ministers or party officials?

ANSWER: In terms of the industrial offsets, the whole country including the ruling party will axiomatically have benefited. Moreover, it is accepted that business donations to party coffers and good causes in a democracy are not unusual - and are unexceptionable if done without corrupt intent. But, so far, no evidence has been presented convincingly to suggest that any political party drew unjust benefit from the principal arms transactions. Should such evidence be brought forward it would be pursued and acted upon by the appropriate authorities.  

QUESTION: Where there's smoke there's fire - doesn't the recent prominence of allegations in the media, and the extent to which the media and public believe there is a need for a commission of inquiry, show that government has a case to answer?

ANSWER: An objective look at the claims being made shows that they consist of a series of suggestions and suspicions, innuendo and assertion of conclusions without evidence. Below are our comments on some of the most frequently cited allegations.

Report in the Citizen, 9 January 2008 (referring to ex-MP Andrew Feinstein's book): "...certain influential ANC politicians quashed a multi-agency investigation into the arms deal.

Comment: There was no quashing. The three-agency JIT inquiry duly reported. Judge Heath did not take part; but that's not "quashing" an investigation.

Article in Saturday Star, 12 January 2008 by Andrew Feinstein speaks of a "neutered investigation".

Comment: Marginally better than "quashing", but something of an insult to the Auditor General, the Public Protector and the NDPP who did conduct the inquiry.

Report in Sowetan (14 February 2008) noting, in the words of Ambassador Barbara Masekela, a "courtesy call" on the President of South Africa by a bidding French company " subsequently awarded a R13 billion share in the arms deal".

Comment: The innuendo and the smear are clear. But such reports, which have appeared widely, fail to take note of two things: 1. The President, in the nature of his work, has countless "courtesy calls" made on him; he is expected to do this in the interests of the country; and 2. If there was corrupt intent, why would he (as he has stressed) have no recollection of such a meeting. A corrupt meeting would be unforgettable, surely? Recollection would be vivid and immediate. Or is the suggestion simply that he is lying?

Report in the Citizen, 19 February 2008 quoting MP Eddie Trent as raising the matter of a French company's encrypted faxes which "had given the impression" that the President (Mbeki) had assured the company of a contract before the tender process was completed.

Comment: How, pray, did Mr Trent get this impression? Could he have been wrong, or misled? Has he drawn a justified conclusion from what he has seen or from what he assumed? What indeed did he see? The point is crucial, in view of the serious allegation made.

Report in Sunday Independent, 16 March 2008, saying the Government was "stalling" on a German request for information.

Comment: The report itself goes on to say that the Government had requested more details. What's stalling about that? And the position was fully explained in a statement by the Justice Department recently. See below for separate section on this matter.

Report in the Sunday Times, 16 March 2008, saying Tokyo Sexwale had made an "impassioned plea" to President Mbeki to "take the ANC into its confidence" re the German allegations that he (Mbeki) was implicated.

Comment: It was later stated that Sexwale, speaking in a private meeting, did not put it this way, but warned about reports that were appearing abroad. This apart, the regular references to allegations of the President's being "implicated" and linked to proceedings that are pending before court have tended to institutionalize the suggestion and even "confirm" it in some minds through mere repetition and little else, and certainly without any corroboration. It creates a certain climate, one where the cap is made to fit regardless of the size of head or cap  - indeed, akin to asking the old, "no-win" Question: "When did you stop beating your wife?"  

Report in the Citizen, 17 March 2008 makes the bold statement that, as it can reveal, "on every occasion Mbeki is alleged to have simply ignored or rebuffed approaches from investigators probing the arms matter and suspicions of Mbeki's ‘role in the deal'.

Comment: This is a most serious charge to level against the person sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution: that he in effect blocked due inquiry into a serious, potentially criminal, matter. In the US, for instance, this is an impeachable offence. Far more circumspection should be employed by editors before retailing this sort of thing, untested ... to adapt a quote by critic Trent: Indeed, it is a matter where the integrity of the Presidency and the reputation of the country could be fatally flawed." (same report)

Report in the Mail & Guardian, 31 March 2008 referred to the "building of a case" against the President of SA, and quoting one unnamed party official "close to the process" as saying: "He (Mbeki) must understand that the ANC is in dire need of the truth. A full disclosure is wanted from the President"; and an (as usual unnamed) "member from Gauteng" is quoted as saying: "We are now getting an idea what his role was in the arms deal".

Comment: What role, beyond the known role of a President or Executive Deputy President? These look like orchestrated smear tactics; far from specific, but fuelling artificial suspicion carefully sown. In many countries the perpetrators would be run in under provisions protecting the head of state from insult or abuse. In South Africa, there are no such provisions in our Constitution or our ordinary law, and we are praised for this internationally by human rights groups. But this laudable principle seems to have been systematically exploited and increasingly subjected to gross abuse. It is small comfort for those who believe in government under law to see a member from KZN quoted right at the end of this report as saying, so sensibly, that "evidence needs to be collected first before anyone will be brought to book", adding so correctly  "We can't come out and say these things until we can present evidence". Well, there are people saying these things, and they are being reported without attribution or specifics. Similarly, the statement by the Sunday Times (in an editorial on 23 March 2008) that "President Mbeki is being dragged into the conflict on the basis of allegations which, if not tested, could destroy his legacy" serves to emphasize the fact that the claims have not been tested in any way. But does that stop this type of journalistic abandon? Not at all. It is becoming open season, a frenzy fed by the new political atmosphere. Good journalism should surely call a halt unless specifics can be produced.

Column in Business Day by Xolela Mangcu, 27 March 2008 claims that Mbeki and Zuma "are now being implicated in the biggest political crime of our times".

Comment: This is a wild and sweeping generalisation. Whether it is remotely true or not, in relation to either of these personages, is totally obscure. It is certainly most damaging to South Africa. It is up to our independent courts, if and when evidence is placed before them by law enforcement agencies, to decide such matters.

The abandoned German investigation

QUESTION: Is there any evidence of non-co-operation by South Africa towards the German prosecutor's request for information in the matter of alleged corruption or bribery prior to the German decision not to proceed?

ANSWER: The Cabinet statement of 25 June categorically denied any such lack of co-operation. This was reiterated by the Cabinet spokesperson at the post-Cabinet briefing.

The relevant official correspondence shows that the Dusseldorf prosecutor's request was made by letter on 19 June 2007. This was responded to by our Department of Justice on 25 October, after due perusal and consideration that would be obviously necessary in a matter of such potential national importance.  

In this letter, the Department sought further particulars, eg details of bank accounts into which alleged bribes were paid; details of SA officials and Cabinet members allegedly involved; and details of the "bribe money" alleged to be part of the arms bid submitted by the German consortium. It was clearly incumbent on the German authorities to provide such information, assuming they possessed serious evidence to back the allegations.

This was followed up by a further letter by the Department to the prosecutor on 26 March 2008 seeking details of "promises" allegedly made to Cabinet members and/or officials to pay certain amounts, it being noted that the German prosecutor had stated that the names were known only to a certain extent.  This letter pointed out that it could be necessary for our Government to have its own investigation into possible contraventions of SA law, in the light of the German allegations. These exchanges cannot in any way strengthen the suggestion that the SA Government wished unduly to delay or frustrate the investigation. On the contrary, it indicated that SA offered the view that it, too, might wish to investigate the matter, but needed more information from the Germans.  That is not an unreasonable position to take, and shows a willingness to work together with the Germans in the matter.

In the event, the Dusseldorf prosecutor in June this year indicated that the prosecution would not go ahead. Various reports have been published which suggest South African foot-dragging - a charge that can hardly be sustained when one has reference to the details of the correspondence as outlined above. The reasons why there has been this continuing suspicion, with aspersions cast on high personages in the SA Government without the production of anything approaching convincing evidence, can only be speculated about.  But it is fair comment to suggest that there could be a determination in some quarters, including in sections of the media, to slander senior South African figures, whether for political or other reasons. This is as shameful as it is unjustified.

The SA Government has made it clear, time and again, that if there is evidence of wrong-doing by anyone - and indeed, as stated, no one at any level in South African society enjoys protection from the full force of the law - this should be produced and it will be investigated by the appropriate authorities with all the speed and thoroughness that is required.

It is reasonable to make an appeal to the media and political quarters to exercise some restraint before levelling unsubstantiated, generalized and damaging allegations against fellow South Africans, in the absence of concrete evidence. The German nolle prosequi decision should serve to discourage such excesses, and help to bring greater balance and maturity to the discussion of matters of grave importance to all South Africans.

Statement issued by the Minister in the Presidency, Essop Pahad and Minister of Public Enterprises, Alec Erwin, September 5 2008