ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SERITI COMMISSION OF INQUIRY: SAVING WHOSE REPUTATION?
The Centre for Constitutional Rights (CFCR) has noted with great concern recent media reports of allegations about the Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of Fraud, Corruption, Impropriety or Irregularity in the Strategic Defence Procurement Package.
These reports allege that the Seriti Commission of Inquiry and its chairperson, Judge Willie Seriti, may be undermining the objectives of the Commission as set out in its Terms of Reference. Quoting from a resignation letter drafted by a senior investigator of the Commission, Norman Moabi, and addressed to Judge Seriti, it is reported that the Chairperson was allegedly pursuing a "second agenda" which included the obsessive control of the flow of information to and from the Commission and selective inclusion of information in briefs to only certain investigators - thus only allowing some investigators access to certain information.
If this is indeed true, the Commission's integrity, as well as its ability to achieve its objectives by virtue of its Terms of Reference, is highly questionable.
Various valid reservations about the Commission's integrity have previously been raised. These include questions about the appointment of staff members with less than desirable reputations; the removal of the original evidence leaders; long delays in progress regarding the work of the Commission; a reported conflict of interest, after it came to light that Judge Seriti authorised the tapping of telephone conversations that led to the dropping of related corruption charges against President Zuma; and the apparent suppression of information submitted to the Commission in terms of regulation 14 of the Commission's Regulations(promulgated in terms of the Commissions Act, 1947) following a request by anti-arms deal campaigner, Terry Crawford-Browne, for permission to make his own submission public. His request was denied, although he nevertheless made his submission public.
Regulation 14 provides that "no person shall without the written permission of the Chairperson -
a. Disseminate any document submitted to the Chairperson by any person in connection with the inquiry or publish the contents or any portion of the contents of such document; or
b. Peruse any document, including any statement, which is destined to be submitted to the Chairperson or intercept such document while it is being taken or forwarded to the Chairperson."
Regulation 16 criminalises the contravention of regulation 14 meaning that, unless the Chairperson has given written permission, no document (including statements) - whether already submitted or still to be submitted to the Chairperson and whether or not this information was previously in the public domain - may be distributed or read by any person. As a result, even if the final report were to be made public, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to verify if all information submitted to the Commission was indeed considered and reflected in the final report and findings. It will also restrict future publication of information which was otherwise previously already in the public domain, thus effectively censoring such information.
If there was any doubt about how the Chairperson would apply this regulation, it was removed by his response to Crawford-Browne's request. The implications of regulation 14 become even more alarming in the light of the Commission's comment, reported by Mr Moabi, that "when we have dealt with the first witnesses, they will not again make noises in the public media." This seems to indicate that one of the "second agenda" purposes of the Commission might be to muzzle public comment on arms deal corruption by anyone who presents evidence to the Commission.
It is also disturbing that, according to Mr Moabi's letter of resignation, the Commission has at this early stage in its investigations apparently dismissed the voluminous evidence presented to it by parties that are understandably concerned about the arms deal: "When you look at the submissions made by the Terry Crawford-Brownes of this world, you realise that they are not factual, but are based on hearsay. There is no substance in what they have said in the public media up to now."
Evidently, President Zuma took these allegations seriously or he would not have appointed a Commission of Inquiry to investigate them. Consequently, the Chairperson's application of regulation 14, together with the latest allegations regarding the management of information within the Commission, requires urgent clarification.
Announcing the Terms of Reference of the Commission, Minister Jeff Radebe stated that "[t]he establishment of this Commission and the commencement of its work, represent a watershed moment in the history of democratic South Africa, in a quest to rid our nation of what has become an albatross that must now cease to blemish the reputation of our government and the image of our country." The objective of the Commission should, respectfully, not be to "cease to blemish" the reputation of the government or anybody else, but to get to the truth about suspected corruption of gigantic proportions in the arms deal - allegedly involving some people at the very heart of government.
If the Seriti Commission is to retain its credibility, it is essential that it should deal convincingly with the serious allegations set out in Mr Moabi's letter of resignation. If it does not establish beyond any doubt the integrity of the Chairperson and the transparency of the Commission's procedures, its final report and findings will do little to save anybody's reputation.
Statement issued by Adv Johan Kruger, Director: Centre for Constitutional Rights, January 18 2013
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
