Ngcobo denies arms deal commission approach

The society's co-chairs Nano Matlala and Praveen Sham are quoted as saying in a report on the News24 site: 'We commend the President on this decision and agree with him that closure on the subject will be in the public interest.' The society urged the President to appoint a formal commission of inquiry to ensure that it had the necessary powers, legal standing and funding to carry out the inquiry credibly, transparently and expeditiously. Speculation in the weekend media that Zuma wants recently-retired Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo to head the commission has been rejected. The Sunday Times claimed Ngcobo was approached last week to head the commission, but Ngcobo denies this. 'I know nothing about any commission,' Ngcobo is quoted as saying in Beeld . 'It is a lie if people say I have already been approached or accepted an offer to lead the commission.' Justice department spokesperson Tlali Tlali told the paper Zuma has not taken any further decisions following his announcement last week. And Zuma's spokesperson Mac Maharaj is quoted in Business Day as saying weekend reports were 'unsourced speculation'. However, the report notes that there is wide support for Ngcobo to be appointed, Full Sunday Times report Full Beeld report Full Business Day report

Much will depend on the scope and powers of the official probe, according to constitutional law quoted in a report in The Mercury. Unless Zuma invokes the Commissions Act, which grants powers of subpoenas, the much vaunted official inquiry would be little more than a talk shop, constitutional law experts said.The Justice Ministry, which is drafting the terms of reference, has indicated that by today there would be a fair sense of when details of its scope and composition would be made public. DA MP David Maynier said Ngcobo - a 'highly respected jurist' - would be 'an ideal person to carry out this task of national importance'. The terms of reference should be drawn sufficiently wide for not only the alleged corruption but also the alleged cover-up to be investigated, Maynier said. The offset deals - which promised the creation of scores of thousands of jobs that did not materialise - also needed to be probed. UCT constitutional law expert Professor Pierre de Vos said that while the Constitution gave the President broad powers to appoint a commission, for it to have any teeth it would need to be constituted in terms of the Commissions Act, which provided for powers to subpoena witnesses and information. Full report in The Mercury (subscription needed) See: Arms deal jobs ruse (in City Press)

Former ANC MP and arms deal expert Andrew Feinstein reckons Zuma's decision is an enormous political risk, says a Cape Argus report. Feinstein said Zuma's move was a 'risky gamble' but may have been the only way out of a tight corner, given the Constitutional Court's demand for answers on why he has refused to appoint a commission to investigate persistent allegations of corruption associated with the deal. Feinstein said the last thing Zuma would have wanted was to have to 'respond point by point to the allegations against him (Zuma) and against the ANC'. He suggested the President's decision would enable him to appoint the commissioners and set out their terms of reference, rather than risking a court-imposed probe. An inquiry would also give Zuma breathing space since he could argue that it was inappropriate for the arms deal to be discussed publicly while an investigation was under way. And it would take the arms deal out of the equation in the run-up to the ANC's elective conference in Mangaung next year. According to the report, Feinstein also suggested that appointing a commission would eliminate a 'significant threat' from ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema, who has hinted at spilling the arms deal beans depending on how his disciplinary hearing pans out. A third factor that may have played a role in Zuma's decision was the evidence emerging from arms deal probes elsewhere in the world - particularly in Germany and Sweden - where investigators are primed to act on evidence that million-rand bribes were paid to South Africans during arms deal negotiations. Full Cape Argus report (subscription needed)

Arms deal activist Terry Crawford-Browne will withdraw his Constitutional Court case against Zuma only if credible people were appointed to the commission, says a report on the News24 site. Crawford-Browne said he wanted to see the terms of reference before considering withdrawing his case, set for 17 November in the Constitutional Court. 'The commission has got to have reliable and credible people, not politically malleable people like those in the Joint Investigation Team,' Crawford-Browne said. Full report on the News24 site See also: Remove stench of corruption by Terry Crawford-Browne

Scopa chairperson and IFP MP Gavin Woods said the decision was good news for those who experienced the bitter disappointment of the investigations that were compromised 10 years ago, notes a report in The Star. Woods said there were many who had detailed insight on how previous investigations were handled, and added the last thing the country needed was to have an inquiry compromised again. While the country did have a right to recoup the R70bn spent, he said the inquiry needed to take place on three levels: the contract level, the sub-contracts and the offset deals. According to the report, he added there was a massive political fallout on investigations being compromised in the past. Full report in The Star (subscription needed)

According to a Sunday Times editorial, the questions which this commission must answer are quite simple. It lists them as: * Were the best interests of the country served in terms of cost and effectiveness by the procurement choices made by the government? * Was the arms deal procurement process subject to the levels of transparency and accountability which our democracy demands? * Were bribes paid? By whom and to whom? * Were any members of the executive compromised in their decision-making? * Did any monies paid by arms companies find their way into the coffers of political parties or businesses set up or part-owned by officials of political parties? * Were previous investigations into the deal conducted without undue interference by the executive, as has been repeatedly alleged? * Did the purchase decisions represent a wise and proportionate spending choice, given the competing demands on resources for the delivery of basic services? The editorial adds: 'There can be no stepping back from these questions, especially considering developments abroad.' Full Sunday Times editorial See also: Activists' wish lists for inquiry's terms