kameraad mhambi

Deputy Justice minister Andries Nel pointed out on Friday that I & my blog suffer from some service delivery blockages.

You, in turn, promised “to respond in good time” to my reply.

Almost a year and a half has passed since then. Regrettably, no response has been forthcoming.

Perhaps you should devote some time to addressing this “delivery blockage” on your blog

I had not responded – to his response – on my accusations that he effectively helped – along with many other people – sweep the matter of the arms deal under the carpet and so doing undermined good governance and accountability even further in South Africa.

But I intend to respond. Starting with this post. But I have to explain a few things.

The honorable minister must realise that I am but a part-timer, and that I will need his help to get to the bottom of my mistakes. Having been so gullible as to believe this Andrew Feinstein chap, he can perhaps point out to us – the public – where we got it so horribly wrong.

So this will be part a response part a set of questions that the honourable minister can perhaps clarify. And it wont come in one installment.

So lets go through the Honourbale Minister’s response.

Dear Wessel,

In your blog of 24 December 2007 (“Party Pooper: Andries Nel – Sies!”) you accuse me of having, “contributed to the demise of the moral fibre and the growth in corruption of the ANC.” You base these accusations on Andrew Feinstein’s book, After the Party.

These accusations are very serious – so much so that one would have expected you to have heard my side of the story before deciding to, “expose, to hound and to damn.”

You say that, “those who are mentioned and named are of course, welcome to reply.” I would have expected more than a cyber kangaroo court from you. Hanging first and hearing evidence later just isn’t good enough.

Although I certainly don’t expect a Minister in government to be au fait with blogging theory I would like to use this opportunity to point out what is considered to be the most widely held opinion about blogging. That it is not the same as traditional print journalism, and more specifically that writing a post is a process and not a final product.

New York media professor Jeff Jarvis has voiced a number of new journalistic principles that applies to this kind of journalism.

“The readers are the editors – When these reporters blog their beats – involving the community in suggesting and requesting stories, sometimes even in reporting, and certainly in correcting mistakes – then the community acts as the assignment desk, and the idea of editing every comma seems futile. My blog readers are my editors.

Reporting becomes a process not a product. Online we tend to publish first, edit later.
Blogging journalists put up “half-baked posts” – which, as Gawker Media’s Nick Denton explains, is our way of saying: “Here’s what I know, here’s what I don’t know – what do you know?” “

So this is a guiding principle of mine. And lo and behold, you have come back to correct me. And now we have the opportunity to clarify the matter further through the cut and thrust of open debate and information sharing and in the process help the South African people understand the issue.

I will however concede that when you say:

“When you were busy with your film project on the “border war” you found time, on numerous occasions, to correspond with me by email, seeking assistance in tracing activists in the anti-conscription movement. I gladly responded to these requests and also met with you to discuss your project. What made it so difficult to contact me regarding this matter?

This kind of behaviour goes against the traditions of comradeship, rigorous, honest intellectual engagement and common decency that existed amongst the activists you mention. You say that, “charity (and putting right wrongs) should start at home.” I agree. I would add that the same should apply to getting things – like facts – right.”

New media theory not with standing I have to admit you have a point. I have your contact details, we know each other and could have contacted you first. I have to admit that I had been a bit lackadaisical, but I never thought the honourable Minister would reply. Or that if you had it would have been with a bogus legal threat.

But in my view its not that important anyhow. You now have the opportunity to state your case – in a way that Andrew Feinstein never offered you – and help the public understand what went on with that pesky arms deal.

“The implication of the statements that I have been, “quietly climbing the ANC ranks” and that my “loyalty must have been noted early on, as he was appointed to the Party’s whips office” is disappointing, especially coming from someone who should know better.

I have never hidden or been ashamed of my loyalty to the liberation movement. It is a loyalty based on deeply held convictions that I have maintained during times when doing so held no prospect for material reward. I will continue to be a loyal and disciplined member of the ANC – also in the democracy for which so many of its members died.”

Allow me to some this up – your saying that when you started to support the ANC it was a risk, not a highway to power and patronage. In essence that for the honourable Minister principle trumps material reward? But also you say that you will stay loyal to the ANC.

This confuses me a bit. So a hypothetical question for minister Nel to clear this up as its not hundred percent clear for me what you are saying here.

If – heaven forbid – the ANC were to betray its founding principles and endanger the democracy for which some of its members died – would you continue to be loyal? Or would you, like the young and principled maverick of old speak out for what you think is right?

That is I think the base question which I would like for you to answer. And everything else should be measured against it.

But lets return to your response:

“Returning to the charges of, “contributing to the demise of the moral fibre and the growth in corruption of the ANC.” The only evidence you adduce is Mr. Feinstein’s account of the matter involving former Minister Penuel Maduna and (the late) former Auditor General Henri Kleuver and my participation in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA.)

You quote/paraphrase Feinstein to the effect that the ad hoc committee dealing with this matter – which I chaired – blocked “a full investigation” and “despite hearing damning evidence against the Minister, the Committee found in his favour.” You also say, “Yengeni told them ‘I don’t think a public hearing is a good idea, this matter should be dealt with internally, like the Maduna matter.’”

The facts, in highly abridged form, go something like this:

During Parliamentary question time Maduna accused Kleuver of aiding and abetting certain oil sanction busting activities of the apartheid regime. The matter was referred to the Public Protector. An extensive investigation, lasting many months and costing millions of rands came to the conclusion Maduna’s allegations were not true. There was, therefore, no need for a further “full investigation.” The Public Protector briefed the ad hoc committee on his findings in a series of open and transparent meetings – no inkling of the matter being “dealt with internally.” The committee did not, “find in favour” of Maduna, but accepted the Public Protector’s findings. What is true is that we did not hang, draw and quarter Maduna as many had wanted. By the time the Public Protector’s report was presented to Parliament Maduna had long withdrawn the offending remarks (something the Public Protector missed.) In terms of the rules of Parliament, there was no further sanction to apply.

Thank you minister Nel for clarifying this for us. I certainly will have to take your word that there were no further sanctions to apply. I can only presume that Mr. Feinstein is wrong in claiming that this was a highly irregular procedure followed in the face of a clear breach by a minister of Parliamentary rules and the constitution.

What confuses me a little is why “The matter was referred to the Public Protector. An extensive investigation, lasting many months and costing millions of rands came to the conclusion Maduna’s allegations were not true.”

This troublesome Feinstein claims minister Meduna misunderstood a fairly standard accounting entry, and that the mistake had been pointed out to him by a fellow ANC parliamentarian, and – now your fellow minister – Barbera Hogan. Yet Meduna failed to retract his statement. According to Feinstein this caused a constitutional crisis even.

So question number 2 and 3 for the honourable minister.

Why does Feinstein say this or is he just making this up and being melo-dramatic for the sake of his book?

And why was an investigating costing thousands of Rands needed if it was clear that the minister had misunderstood a standard accounting error that one of your members understood straight away? Why was an ad hoc committee created as there was a procedure in place? And lastly why had your committees hearing taken so long?

I see parliament has been rather open and byderwets and is publishing all the Hansards (records of proceedings in Parlaiment) online for the public to read. But unfortunately, it seems it has been done in such a way that its not being read by the search engines.

So its rather hard to find the information one is looking for. Besides the online volumes don’t cover 1997. The year I believe this incident took place.

Can Minister Nel please point us to the year and approximate time of this outburst in parliament so we can go read it for ourselves?

But more importantly, can Minister Nel provide us with a copy of his ad hoc committees report – I can not find any reference to it online. You can just email it. Would love to read it and to share it.

But lets get to the meat of the minister Nel’s rebuttal, the part that really matters. The investigation by parliament of the governments expenditure on arms and the Ministers involvement in this.

In relation to SCOPA, you make the statement that, “the new members of the Committee were openly hostile to Feinstein. As far as Scopa was concerned the arms deal would be investigated no further.” Firstly, I don’t recall ever being “hostile” – openly or otherwise – to Mr. Feinstein. Tellingly, you provide no examples.

Touche. I don’t have any, because Mr. Feinstein doesn’t provide any in his book. I did not attend any of these Scopa meetings.

A little bit of back story. One of the reasons for my “service delivery blockage” was that after Minister Nel’s response to my original blog post I sent an email to Mr. Feinstein via his publisher Johnathan Ball. And then another.

But the rabble rousing Mr. Feinstein never bothered to respond. I guess Mr. Feinstein is too busy talking to the BBC etc than to engage on a lowly blog, or perhaps he was angered that I wrote on his blog that bar two chapters of his book, I found it rather naive (if brave).

But to answer your question, the bottom line is that I simply can’t provide evidence. But what I can say is that the atmosphere of mistrust and fear inside the ANC Feinstein describes in his book seems palpable and Orwellian to say the least. I mean was the microphones in Parliament really removed after a leak to the press of Mbeki’s continued Aids denial?! Goodness me! I bet you Andries, that just like me, you are actually very glad to see the back of that dude?

I digress.

There seems to me that there is no escaping that the findings of Feinsteins’s Scopa – prior to your appointment – was contradicted by the ANC later. And that Mr Feinstein was removed as ANC Scopa man and that yourself along with others was put in his place. He would have had to be rather insensitive not to experience this on its own as rather disappointing, and a vote of no confidence in his work and a demotion in his career.

A short history of that arms deal and its partial uncovering
Now lets recap. This is my understanding of the progression of the arms deal and how irregularities with it came to light. Why am I recapping? I think its important to understand the import of the arms deal and everybodies role within it.

And it took me a whole day to get this together I might add.

The arms deal first made it to the limelight when Praticia de Lille raised the allegations based on a report she received from a couple of ANC MPs – I wonder who they were? I secretly hope somebody like you were one of them. But I digress again.

The Auditor-General then under leadership of Shaukat Fakie produced a report that found a range of irregularities in the procurement of the arms. The report rather charmingly named Special Review of the Selection Process of Strategic Defence Packages for the Acquisition of Armaments is available online. It concludes:

As mentioned in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 material deviations from generally accepted procurement practice were discovered. The explanation provided by DoD for this material deviation does not appear to be satisfactory. Based on the review performed at prime contractor level there were no other material findings other than those mentioned in paragraphs 3.3 – 3.9.

The review focussed mainly on the awarding of contracts to prime contractors. Many allegations regarding possible irregularities in contracts awarded to subcontractors exist, of which the finding in paragraph 3.6.1 is an example. I recommend that a forensic audit of or special investigation into these areas be initiated.

This is what set Mr. Feinstein into action. Or so he says. He and the Scopa he was part of – as the ranking ANC member – planned to investigate the matter in an impartial manner he claims. He even went as far as to discuss the investigation with then deputy President Jacob Zuma, who encouraged Feinstein to continue as planned.

Frene Ginwala, then Speaker called Feinstein to see her. But she too encouraged him to pursue the inquiries “fully and comprehensively” – provided that before implicating any MPs she was given their names and documentation pertaining to their behaviour. Feinstein concurred.

Feinstein also briefed Minister of Defence, Terror Lekota who said they (Scopa) must pursue the matter and that Feinstein had ‘nothing to be inhibited by’.

But…

On the morning of 11 October 2000 Feinstein and fellow ANC Scopa member Laloo Chiba met in his office to go through their questions one last time before the first hearing. It was then that Feinstein alleges that the chief whip called them to a meeting.

It is after explaining to Toni Yengeni – I presume your boss at the time as you were a whip yourself – what a forensic investigation would entail, that Feinstein alleges Yengeni said: “I don’t think a public hearing is a good idea, this matter should be dealt with internally, like the Maduna matter.”

So honourble minister Andries Nel. Can you help the South African public? What do you think Chief Whip meant by this statement? Can you explain because it seems to me you suggest that Feinstein misread the Meduna matter?

After telling Yengeni that they had the go ahead from Zuma, Feinstein and Chiba reminded him that the meeting was to start in 5 minutes and that they could not postpone it at such short notice. That must have been rather brave. Feinstein claims Laloo Chiba was furious that Toni Yengeni tried to interfere.

I wonder about this Feinstein guy. Is he for real? I mean to my Boere ears his surname sounds foreign. Can he be trusted?

In any event Feinstein goes further to claim that he saw Yengeni – before the hearing started – talk to Ron Haywood, then the head of Arms manufacturer Armscor. Feinstein claims he overheard Yengeni saying to Haywood “I have called in the two main chaps, and I have laid down the line”.

Feinstein claims he rushed off to tell Chiba that Yengeni was laying down the line on behalf of Armscor and that this made them even more determined to go ahead. Uppity! But if true I have to say its sounds to me that Mr. Feinstein is on the side of princeple don’t you think? Just like you.

One of the things that committee managed to establish that day was that the cost of the arms deal was already 44 billion Rand (at 1999 prices) and not the already eye watering 30 billion Rand the government had claimed. Still nobody could put a final cost on the deal that day. Some now speculate that it could exceed 70 billion Rand.

To put this into context. Minister Trevor Manual in the annual budget speech this year (2009) trumpeted that R24,8bn that is going to the provinces – but over three years. He boasted about R932-million (less than a billion) going to the fight against Aids, and he bragged about an extra R5,4-bn going for the fight against crime – again over 3 years. The total budget for rural development and land reform, an ANC policy mainstay, is but R20.3bn over 3 years.

How scandelous.

I can not find records of that day’s proceedings online (if you have a copy can you please share it), but I did find the following. An extract from that day’s proceedings with regards to so-called Offsets:

Shaik: After the Cabinet decided on the package, the negotiating team dealt with the suppliers as preferred bidders.

Feinstein: We as a committee don’t deal with policy, but value for money for public funds. Why don’t we spend most of our budgets on arms in order to leverage economic development? It doesn’t make sense to me as an economist. International literature suggests these offsets are subsequently diluted or disappear, or the suppliers factor the penalties into the costs. Why should South Africa be different from international experience?

Shaik: Too much emphasis is being placed on suggestions that the DoD is acquiring equipment because of the countertrade.

Feinstein: The deal presented to Parliament is that R43.8 billion is being paid for armaments, a second fundamental factor being that we will receive massive economic benefits. We want surety that the economic benefits will be forthcoming.

Naidoo: It is a highly questionable proposition that offsets will generate economic development. Our exercise was to recoup some of the expenditure on the armaments approved by government. The acquisitions were not meant to generate a massive economic boom, but would be economically neutral. The defence industry works world-wide on the basis of offsets. If it failed to perform on its commitments, it would be unlikely to gain business elsewhere.

It seems to me that one cannot but infer that the hearings that day – in a large partdue to Feinstein’s questioning – destroyed one of government’s prime reasons given as motivation for the deal, that it would lead to economic growth through so called offsets. Jayendra Naidoo who had negotiated the offsets on behalf of the government admitted it. Finish and klaar.

It would seem that if Mr Feinstein is to be believed, Chippy Shaik’s answers on this day with regards to conflicts of interest when negotiating the arms deal were all but satisfactory as well. But I wont go in to details, as I’m tiring, please forgive me.

But Feinstein did not stop here. Next – after the hearing – Feinstein claims they (Scopa) submitted a wide request for documents from the Defence Force (SANDF), which was duely supplied.

On receipt of the documents Feinstein claims it became clear to him that there was far more going on in the arms deal that they had grasped. Now I wonder, if this Feinstein was a bad apple why was he given so much license to dig this far?

Scopa were to use this information to draft a resolution to Parliament on the way forward.

But wait there’s more. Feinstein also received more information about irregular behaviour from a foreign diplomat who had dealt with Chippy Shaik. The diplomat was told to get into contact with someone with the name of one Tsepo Molai in order to stand a chance to win the deal. Molai in turn was linked to ex defence minister Joe Modise.

It was suggested he (Molai) be hired as a consultant. Mr. Molai wanted a $250,000 start up fee and a $25,000 a month retainer. When the diplomat declined, it was the end of their bid. Or so says Mr Feinstein.

Then another person working on behalf of an Italian company Frincatiere contacted Mr. Feinstein and described and almost identical experience to the foreign diplomat’s. But this time Chippy suggested his brother Schabir as an appropriate empowerment partner.

Then Frincatiere was told they had won the deal, only to be told later – when the president of the company arrived in South Africa – that a German company had clinched it. But Chippy added, they could still better the Germans with a $15 million dollar payment. Or so says Mr Feinstein. But Feinstein claims that a second source in the Navy confirmed the story.

Richard Young’s evidence to Feinstein (including documentation) further implicated Joe Modise, Schabir Shaik, General Lambert Moloi, (Modise’s brother in Law) and Tshepo Maloi (Moloi’s son in law). There also was evidence that the ANC itself bennefitted from the arms deal claims Feinstein.

An ANC member came to see Feinstein that claimed that as a member of parlaiments Defence Committee he was aware that both Tony Yengeni and his deputy had received money and or gifts for “various roles in assisting international defence companies”.  Two other members of the Committee later confirmed this to Feinstein. Or so he claims.

I know this is getting long and a bit tedious. But do stay with me. The point I’m trying to make is that Mr. Feinstein was rather dilligently doing the hard yards for the South African people. I wonder what you did when you were appointed to the committee.

Feinstein then requested the minutes of the cabinet sub committee – and amazingly it was given to him. It it, it was clear that Joe Modise was the driver to have cost removed as a criteria for accepting the bids. And Modise’s advisor Fana Hlongwane and Chippy Shaik turned out to be the main movers and shakers in the body who was to make the decision – The Armaments Acquisition Council.

SCOPA’s resolution
Armed with all this Scopa set forth to draft their resolution that they would put before parliament. Feinstein says they felt that what was needed was an extensive forensic investigation envolving all available resources and expertise. This would be asked for in the resolution.

Before finalising the resolution both Bulelani Ngcuka (the then director of public prosecutions) and Selby Baqwa (public protector) gave it their support, including the composition of the investigation team the resolution called for. Terror Lekota was briefed separately.

Frene Ginwala again gave her support offering resources. When told of Tony Yengeni’s interference she told Feinstein that if anybody were to interfere with the investigation she would resign in protest. Or so says Feinstein.

Feintein met with Zuma putting it to him that he felt Yengeni was intimidating the ANC members that sat on Scopa. Worryingly he provided no evidence of this intimidation. Got him there!

But Zuma acted according to Feinstein and ordered Yengeni to have no contact with the committee. Mmm… the plot thickens.

Feinstein says he thought they were protected as both the Speaker and the Head of the ANC in parlaiment (Zuma) had given them the go ahead.

On the second of November 2000 the 14th report of the Stading Committee on Public accounts were accepted without a murmer, much to Feinstein’s surprise.

Soon Feinstein claims he heard rumours that your boss, Tony Yengeni, exploded when he heard the report had been passed by Parliament. Can you confirm and tell us more?

More worryingly he claims he heard rumours that the Presidency was upset as well.

A few days later on the 8th of November the ANC study group (the ANC component of SCOPA) was called into a meeting with the newly established ANC Governance committee. Notable was the presence of Zuma, Ginwala, Yengeni, but also Essop Pahad, the president Mbeki’s right hand man. Also present was the new chair of the defence committee Ntiski Mashimbye.

So another pertinent question. Were you present at this meeting Kameraad Nel?

Zuma asked the ANC study group to take their place at the other side of the table. Feinstein claims they were scared. I’m certainly not surprised. Mashimbye started a verbal assault on the study group – so Feinstein claims. Bizarly with Essop Pahad clapping him on the back, egging him on.

Johnny de Lange, chair of the parlaimentary Justice Committee weighed in and claimed their is no evidence of impropriety. He added that the investigation should under no circumstances be handed to Judge Heath’s investigation Unit. Or so says Mr. Feinstein. (De Lange was soon to be made deputy justice minister by Mbeki, just like you are now.)

Feinstein were given the opportunity to explain the evidence they had. He was cut short by Pahad:

“Who do you think you are, questioning the integrity of the government, the Minister and the President?”

Pahad wanted to resolution withdrawn. De Lange pointed out that it could not be done, but that the ANC could use its majority on Scopa to water down the effect of the resolution and exclude the Heath Unit.

In case you were not there, Frene Ginwala never offered to resign. She was tjoep stil.

One of the fellow Study Group members said to Feinstein after the experience:

“You know comrade many years on the Island could not break me, but Thabo’s ANC might”.

Dear Comrade Minister Nel. Do you think Feinstein made this up?

That’s all for now Minister Andries Nel. I hope to follow this up during the week between work commitments where I will continue the history of the arms deal and address your response further.

Related deployments:

1. Kameraad Mhambi responds to Kameraad Nel (Part 3)
2. Kameraad Mhambi responds to Kameraad Nel (Part 2)
3. Let bygones be bygones Kameraad Nel? (Part 4)
4. Barbara Hogan is health minister (Video)
5. The cabinet: In the ANC loyalty pays big time