Ivor Powell
With Parliament gearing up to act and the auditor general questioning the probity of the process, the lid could finally be coming off South Africa’s controversial R32-billion weapons procurement programme after a report in the Mail & Guardian last week (“Nepotism in R32bn arms deal”) showing irregularities in the awarding of contracts.
Both the official opposition, the Democratic Party, and the New National Party indicated this week they will be asking questions in Parliament on the issue.
Also this week the chair of Parliament’s portfolio committee on defence, Thandi Modise, said that she “expected” that the joint committee on defence would be calling public hearings to address the allegations. “It is necessary to clear the air and find out once and for all whether there is truth in these rumours,” Modise said.
“If the joint committee does not hold public hearings, I will have to consider using the portfolio committee to bring the issues to light,” he added.
The M&G reported last week how the arms deal was apparently riddled with impropriety and nepotism, with several of the contracts going to companies linked to the man in charge of the selection process.
Meanwhile, the Office of the Auditor General has confirmed that it has uncovered prima facie evidence that “good procedures and good process were not always observed in respect of the weapons deals”.
Auditor Wally van Heerden said the results of the initial investigations had been submitted in the form of a “management letter” to defence secretary January Masilela for comment and further instructions. Thereafter a decision would be made on what, if any, action would follow.
Van Heerden pointed out that the audit has so far focused exclusively on procedural aspects of awarding contracts.
“We had no authority to investigate bank accounts or to probe allegations of bribery,” Van Heerden said. “If the Department of Defence decides to take the matter further, such questions would be looked into by the Heath commission.”
Meanwhile, the weapons procurement deal could become an even greater embarrassment to the government in the light of accusations that the South African Air Force (SAAF) has spent R3,3- billion on 28 Gripen fighter aircraft it is not in a position to fully utilise.
The M&G has learned that the SAAF currently has fewer than 10 pilots qualified to fly the 30 perfectly serviceable Cheetah C aircraft it currently owns – and none as yet capable of flying the Gripens.
The Cheetah Cs were bought, in a batch of 32, from Israel as recently as 1996. But faced with a shortage of qualified pilots in the SAAF, more than half of the aircraft are virtually unused. Two of the aircraft have been decommissioned after crashes.
The C-class Cheetahs were bought to replace, at the cutting edge of technology, an earlier generation aircraft, the Cheetah D, which the SAAF still flies. As opposed to the still- functional Cheetah C, analysts noted that the Cheetah D was indeed at the point of obsolescence.
Questioning the decision to buy the Gripens, freelance defence analyst Dave Verster told the M&G that the Cheetahs already in the possession of the SAAF constituted a force more powerful than any air attack that neighbouring countries in Africa could assemble.
“The Cheetah has been specially modified in line with African conditions, and is generally considered a far more suitable aircraft for South African purposes than the single-seater Gripen,” Verster said.
“The Cheetah is still the most capable combat aircraft in sub-Saharan Africa, even though it is considered slow as a result of its heavy electronic load.” Verster noted that South Africa is the only country yet to buy the British Aerospace/Saab manufactured Gripen JAS 39.
Meanwhile, the M&G has learned that it will cost about R35-million to modify each Gripen to make it serviceable in African conditions.
The problem with the Gripen, experts say, is that it is specifically designed for Nato conditions in Europe, where only a relatively short strike range is required and the capacity exists for frequent refuelling at airfields within striking distance.
Under African conditions, how-ever, where, for instance, the aircraft could be needed in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where such facilities would not be available, the fighter has been described as practically useless. “It wouldn’t even make it out of the borders of South Africa from Pretoria,” one source said, “let alone to Luanda or Kinshasa.”
Economists Allied for Arms Reduction representative Terry Crawford Browne said the Gripen purchase was “incomprehensible”.
“Let’s put this whole thing in perspective,” Crawford Browne continued. “Conservatively estimated, the money spent on arms procurement could have built a million homes.”
Meanwhile the M&G has learned that the acquisition of 40 Italian-made Agusta utility helicopters as part of the weapons procurement programme was made against the wishes of SAAF experts.
Before the final deal was done, the SAAF had already selected the Bell 427 – the world market leader in the class – going so far as to signal the forthcoming deal by draping the Bell helicopter in South African colours at an exhibition of defence technologies.
However, as reported in the M&G last week, the deal went sour after the American company failed to bring Futuristic Business Solutions, a company with close links to the South African military establishment, in on the deal.
However, the usefulness of the Agusta in the conditions for which it was bought has been questioned by analysts. “The first purchase of Agustas was made for maritime conditions,” Verster noted. “The problem is it cannot take high altitudes, and this reduces its effectiveness.”
l Last week the M&G incorrectly reported that Futuristic Business Solutions had been awarded a contract for providing combat suites for four Corvettes bought as part of the procurement deal. In fact the contract – which was brokered by African Defence Systems, a company at the time wholly owned by the French defence manufacturer, Thompson – was, seemingly irregularly, given to another Thompson subsidiary, Ditexis.