Fact or fiction: We unravel the Guptagate spin

News that the politically connected Gupta family's wedding delegation touched down at the Waterkloof Air Force base last week brought with it a storm of public denials and rebuttals.

• The beginners' guide to the Guptas

The Gupta family has held their line – that all due protocols were followed in granting permission for the Gupta plane to land at Waterkloof air force base – and documents seen by the M&G show this to be mostly true.

But it is these statements which link them to the protocol procedure, by virtue of their knowledge of what should have been a plainly diplomatic process involving the Indian and South African governments.

The M&G revealed on Tuesday that the plane carrying the Gupta wedding delegation was cleared to land by the South African National Defence Force (SANDF). But it was cleared under the presumption that it was a VIP flight carrying “central government ministers” from India.

Here is a list of claims being made by various figures in the saga, and our analysis of how true those claims could be.

Claim one: Who requested permission for landing 

• CLAIM: Haranath Ghosh, a spokesperson for the Gupta wedding said "the family" chartered the jet but permission for it to land was granted “by the Indian high commission, and not the family".

  He reiterated that the family knew the air force base was used with the permission of the authorities.

  “The permissions were applied for and granted to the Indian high commission and not the family. These rights can be applied for by any foreign embassy. Naturally suitable protocol was used to receive and transport the foreign ministers to the wedding.”

• FACT CHECK: Mostly true. Permission was applied for by the Indian high commission and not the Gupta family. But how did the Guptas know this? This was for the transportation of a “delegation visit” of government ministers from India and the M&G is unaware of any members of the Gupta family who have been appointed as government ministers in India.

Claim two: The role of the SANDF

• CLAIM: Ghosh: “The Gupta family reiterates that permission for aircraft, carrying foreign ministers and other dignatories, was obtained from the SANDF beforehand. No aircraft is able to land anywhere in the world without obtaining prior permission.”
  ​
• FACT CHECK: Mostly true. But the SANDF officials who gave the go-ahead for the plane to land were clearly under the impression that the purpose of the flight was a “delegation visit”, implying the foreign ministers were visiting South Africa in their professional capacity.

  Meanwhile, government’s line, broadly, is that the flight landing was “unauthorised”. In any event, said Defence Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula on May 2, an initial request for help, made by a Sahara “representative”, was turned down “because it was not even formalised”.

  This was not a request for the SANDF to clear the landing – it appears to have been an attempt to nudge the SANDF in the right direction, pre-empting a request for clearance “to be made” by the Indian high commission.

  What is clear is that the SANDF duly received the request for the “VIP delegation visit” flight to land at Waterkloof, and approved it.

  Cue outrage by the defence minister, who wasted no time in rescinding the landing clearance and marching the offending aircraft off the Waterkloof landing strip. This was followed by a security cluster press briefing on Friday, during which Justice Minister Jeff Radebe addressed the media.

Claim three: No official business

• CLAIM: Radebe: "Our particular concern is that the aircraft was carrying international passengers who do not fit the category of government officials or VIPs on official duty."
   
• FACT CHECK: Mostly true. There is no evidence that the few Indian officials on board conducted any official business. In fact, we don't know if they conducted any business at all, besides attending the Gupta wedding. Our documents show that the passengers were considered VIP and that permission was granted for a plane carrying “central government ministers” from India. When requesting permission for the aircraft to land at Waterkloof, officials said the reason was a “delegation visit”.

  The flight was specifically referred to as a “VIP” one that would need to land at Waterkloof on April 30 and depart on May 3.

Claim four: Date the landing request was made

• CLAIM: Radebe: “The defence attaché of the Indian high commission sent a request for aircraft clearance directly to the Air Force Command Unit within the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) on April 4 2013."
   
• FACT CHECK: Mostly false. Our documents show the first request for the plane to land was sent in February. The letter referred to by Radebe was the second communiqué on the subject.

Claim five: The international relations department's role

• CLAIM: Mapisa-Nqakula: "The Waterkloof Air Command Post received information from the state protocol section of the department of international relations and co-operation, regarding an aircraft carrying state ministers from India and they should assist with clearance for them to land".​
   
• FACT CHECK: Mostly false. Our documents appear to indicate that clearance for the aircraft was granted before anyone at the department of international relations was informed.

  Our documents also show the letter was addressed to the chief of defence foreign relations within the SANDF, an office that liaises more directly with top commanders and the ministry of defence.

Claim six: An unauthorised landing

• CLAIM: Radebe: The government is investigating the “unauthorised landing of a private plane at the Waterkloof Air Force Base".
   
• FACT CHECK: Mostly false. Our documents show that it was authorised. An apparently standard clearance form, marked "RSA05 External Clearance" was signed. It shows that both customs and immigration officials would be required to deal with the passengers.

The investigation continues.