Crossfire
Mungo Soggot
It was always going to be interesting to see how Willem Heath performed when he was hurriedly appointed by the Democratic Alliance to sort out the mess that became known as “Streetgate”. This was the first time Heath’s legal abilities were to be on show since his appointment as head of the special investigating unit, a position from which he became an icon, and then a martyr, for white South Africa.
Heath was robust and fearless in his previous job. Never clear was how good he was without the PR.
After one week’s hearings, Heath, who has gone private, quickly produced a report that routed everyone involved from mayor Peter Marais downwards. Assuming DA leader Tony Leon wanted to show off the DA’s commitment to clean government, Heath’s judgement could not have been more appropriate.
Heath may well have come to the right decisions, but it is not always clear how he got there. He also pulled off a groundless attack on a key witness and failed to give any overall opinion on who ordered whom to concoct public support for Marais’s plan to rename Adderley and Wale streets after Nelson Mandela and FW de Klerk.
Heath has an excuse for the holes in his report. Because of the public and political interest in the saga he had to produce his findings rapidly. It was, as one participant in the hearings observed, a rush job.
Heath reserves much of his criticism for Marais, who was indeed exposed
during the hearings for his boisterous mendacity. Apart from fibbing about the extent of public support for his street-renaming plan, there was not that much with which to hang Marais. Heath milked what there was for all it was worth.
There is nothing wrong with that, but it might have been a more solid
attack had it been backed up by a more thorough analysis of the men whose jugulars were really exposed Marais’s henchmen. Legal adviser Ben Kieser and mayoral spokesman Johan Smit were cleared of fraud but nailed for mismanagement. Kieser and Smit might very well not have been party to fraud, as were the various minions blamed for the forgeries. But Heath does not try to penetrate the detail that could have exposed the real chain of command who told whom to canvass for the votes, and, if necessary, forge.
For example, Heath does not tackle Smit’s notorious comment that some
people’s arms would be “sore” after a weekend of signing. Smit claims in his evidence he was referring to 300 promised yes votes from Pastor Theo Noble, Marais’s R500-an-hour spiritual adviser. Noble testified that he had not promised delivery of these votes that weekend, directly contradicting Smit and raising the crucial question as to whose sore arms Smit was referring. It is one of the details that could have helped establish the chain of command, but Heath does not touch it. He berates Smit for mismanagement and for his disdainful handling of the Mail & Guardian when it broke the story but does not go further. In fact Heath does not give any overall view on what he thinks really took place.
Heath’s treatment of Victoria Johnson, the legal adviser who blew the
whistle about much of the saga’s detail, is problematic. “We have evaluated her evidence and we were not impressed with her evidence in many respects at the public hearing save to the extent that her evidence was corroborated by other witnesses,” the report says. Heath provides no substantiation for this statement, which is particularly damaging to the reputation of a lawyer.
Heath’s swipe at Johnson appears to be an attempt to give the impression of
even-handedness he had to look lofty, willing to blast even the whistleblower. In fact, the salient points of Johnson’s affidavit survived the hearings unscathed.
Considering the rarity of whistleblowing, the whole affair sets a bad
precedent. It is unsurprising Johnson got a rough ride from her colleagues. More worrying is her treatment by the DA leadership. Johnson gave her affidavit last month to then deputy mayor Belinda Walker on condition it remain confidential. Walker, with Johnson’s permission, gave it to Leon, who swiftly gave the document to the press against Johnson’s wishes. Heath notes that Johnson objected to the document’s publication after being denied indemnity: “She was informed that no indemnity was forthcoming and that they would nevertheless publish it.” Heath nevertheless compounded Johnson’s trauma by undermining her for no apparent reason.
Heath’s overall take on the case was muscular he ignored the opportunistic attempt by Marais’s counsel to confine his findings to fraud and corruption, and instead broadened it to mismanagement and dishonesty. This allowed him to accuse Marais & Co of breaching the public trust.
Despite its flaws, the report has major ramifications where the tussle between the Democratic Party and the New National Party is concerned. The street-naming fiasco was a National Party enterprise it reeked of the opportunism and dishonesty that once characterised that party making the report a powerful weapon for anyone in the DA anxious to rein in the NNP contingent.