Defence procurement decisions are opaque, corruptible and often subject to political considerations that may directly contradict assessments of affordability and technical specification. We already know that the purchases designed to equip the airforce and navy for an orientation toward conventional defence were characterised by all of these problems in varying degrees. So perhaps there is nothing surprising about the draft reports of the investigation into the Strategic Defence Packages reluctantly released by Shauket Fakie, the Auditor General, following a court order.
A comparison of the drafts and the final report of the Joint Investigation Team makes it clear just how far Fakie’s office was prepared to go in protecting Parliament — and the public — from exposure to the messy process by which decisions to buy jets and submarines are made.
Fakie has repeatedly said that the report was not materially altered. The drafts appear to give that claim the lie, and as such they pose a renewed challenge to the integrity of his office.
Anything that might have exposed contradictions between the official description of the deal as a crucial programme to recapitalise the defence force, paid for in industrial participation benefits, and its internal processes (a messy web of political manipulation, inadequate procedures, and in some cases outright influence peddling) was deleted.
The changes to the report not only protected individual contracts from legal attack, but provided the government with nominal political cover.
We review details of this process not simply to reiterate concerns over the choice of individual suppliers, but because they raise fundamental questions about the oversight function of the Office of the Auditor General, and the Parliament it reports to.
Fakie has in many ways served the Constitution well, pointing out numerous embarrassing shortcomings in financial management at government bodies, and the quest for a clean sheet from his office has driven sharp improvements in a number of areas.
But, as the arms deal investigation shows, there is more to the job than that. It is one thing to establish your bona fides by revealing that Statistics South Africa can’t count its own money or that the Department of Home Affairs doesn’t know how many computers it owns. It takes a good deal more courage to question a Cabinet-backed process.
And Parliament’s standing committee on public accounts (Scopa) has — ever since the Joint Investigation Team investigation tore it apart — been even weaker than the auditor general. Beyond writing stern letters it has done little to pick up the markers Fakie has laid down, and it seems incapable of addressing more politically charged issues.
The government has decided to embark on a massive military airlift acquisition and manufacturing programme, arguing that it will save the local aerospace industry and answer a real need for peacekeeping and disaster relief capacity. This may or may not be the strategic package we should have bought in 1999, but it is certainly an opportunity for the auditor general, and Scopa, to begin re-establishing their credibility.
As the fallout from the arms deal continues to contaminate the political life of this country, the importance of robust and independent oversight institutions has never been more clear.
Mpumalanga matrics: What now?
Will the government please tell 38 162 young people in Mpumalanga what to do next week Wednesday? And do so fast.
Schools in Mpumalanga — and four other provinces — start teaching their pupils on January 12. But “we should not forget the 38 162 full-time [matric] candidates in Mpumalanga who still face days of waiting and doubt”, Minister of Education Naledi Pandor compassionately urged the nation when she released the matric results on Wednesday last week.
Yet she appeared to have forgotten that the same 38 162 people won’t have received their results by the time schools in that province open. We applaud Pandor’s determination to thoroughly investigate alleged matric cheating in Mpumalanga, and her determination that the results the 38 162 young people receive on January 14 will be credible.
But that’s Friday next week. Schools open two days before. So what are Mpumalanga pupils who wrote matric last year, and who haven’t yet got their results, supposed to do?
Should they go to school so they can have another go at passing matric? The government has been remarkable in ensuring that most teachers and pupils are present on the first day. So why the astonishing lack of government suggestions to the 38 162 about whether they should be present or not?
As of Wednesday this week, the Ministry of Education had not thought of this problem. One call from this newspaper to the ministry ascertained this. Another call from the Mail & Guardian, on the same day, elicited the self-congratulatory ministerial information that schools nowadays register most pupils “up to October of the year before. There are always a few late registrations though.”
A few next Wednesday? In Mpumalanga? Well, who knows? The M&G doesn’t know, and the education ministry and department haven’t thought about it yet. Most importantly, 38 162 people in the province haven’t a clue what to do right now.
May we suggest that Pandor press the red button to get a clear message to 38 162 young people about what they should do next week Wednesday?