Three initiatives over access to information are set to place the government on the rack — in the courts and politically.
All have to do with an issue that has driven a wedge between the government and the governed: the procurement and sale of arms.
This week the tussle over the monitoring and disclosure of arms exports will continue when amendments to the National Conventional Arms Control Bill are debated by the parliamentary committee on defence.
Changes to the Bill have been delayed for two years as the committee, under chairperson Thandi Modise, has repeatedly challenged government attempts to limit transparency and parliamentary oversight.
Sources said that at one stage the relationship was so bad between Modise and Kader Asmal, chairperson of the National Conventional Arms Control Committee and responsible for piloting the Bill through Parliament, that each threatened to resign. Asmal has denied this and claimed disputes over the amendments have been sorted out. Modise was unavailable for comment.
Two core disputes have been over a demand by the committee for oversight of pending arms exports, and the extent of detail to be contained in annual reports of completed exports.
However, the greater challenge may come from two court applications that could reignite controversy around the multibillion-rand arms package.
The issue of spending priorities forms the basis of the legal bid to cancel the arms deal launched in the Cape High Court last year by Terry Crawford-Browne, chairperson of the local chapter of the international arms reduction lobby group, ECAAR.
Crawford-Browne has called on the court to declare the arms contracts null and void. He argues that the decision to go ahead with the deal was “financially, economically, and strategically irrational and thus unlawful and invalid” and that the effect of the decision “is to unjustifiably limit the advancement of socio-economic rights in the manner contemplated in the Bill of Rights. This is unlawful, being in violation of the Bill of Rights, and furthermore confirms the irrationality of the decision.”
The government refused to provide the documentation demanded by Crawford-Browne’s lawyers. These include copies of the purchase contracts, the loan agreements signed by Minister of Finance Trevor Manuel to pay for the deal, and the so-called “Affordability Report” that raised concerns about the financial risks inherent in the deal.
The government’s refusal to make such disclosures came despite an undertaking from ECAAR’s lawyers to meet whatever confidentiality restrictions the government might impose.
ECAAR has now launched a further application to compel the state to provide the documentation so that the main case may proceed.
In his latest affidavit Crawford-Browne argues: “If … the decision to enter into the arms deal was properly and lawfully taken they [the government] have nothing to fear from a hearing before the court on the full facts. Their duty certainly includes a need to be transparent and to ensure that the public and civil society are enabled to challenge decisions such as that to enter into the arms deal, particularly where those decisions have not been placed before Parliament and will have the long-term financial consequences of the arms deal.”
The state has until the end of the month to respond.
Perhaps the most interesting challenge on disclosure comes from defence contractor Richard Young, who claims his company CCII was unfairly denied contracts as part of the arms deal and has launched the first major challenge relating to lack of disclosure in terms of the Public Access to Information Act.
Young has launched a court application to compel the auditor general to release documents relating to the purchase of German corvettes.
Among potentially embarrassing documents requested by Young are three draft reports drawn up by the auditor general, the public protector and the director of public prosecutions and submitted to the government for comment prior to the publication of the final report. The auditor general has denied political interference and stated that nothing of substance was excluded from the final report. However, he has refused to release copies of earlier drafts.
- SA cancelled arms contracts with Israel in 2000
South Africa terminated existing arms contracts with Israel in 2000, says Minister of Education Kader Asmal.
The disclosure came in response to questions from the Mail & Guardian about the possible ongoing role of South African companies in maintaining weapons systems used by Israel in air attacks on the Palestinian occupied territories.
There has been general condemnation of Israel this week following an incident in which an Israeli F-16 warplane dropped a one-tonne laser-guided bomb into a crowded neighbourhood of Gaza City, killing 16 Palestinians, including a top militant, and wounding 160.
South Africa and Israel have in the past collaborated extensively on the development of missile and guidance technology, prompting this week’s questions to Asmal.
The minister, who is the chairperson of the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC), did not explain why the government had waited two years before making public its tough stance on exports to Israel.
In 1999 South Africa exported about R8-million worth of combat system support equipment to Israel.
Last year ANC Western Cape leader Max Ozinsky told a public meeting that South Africa was still servicing existing contracts with Israel and it is understood that at least one Cabinet member was under the same impression.
Asmal’s disclosure coincided with a Cabinet decision on Wednesday to approve the release of official arms export figures for 2000 and last year. The NCACC is expected to release the figures this week. — Sam Sole