IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case No: In the matter between: CORRUPTION WATCH First Applicant RIGHT2KNOW CAMPAIGN Second Applicant And THE ARMS PROCUREMENT COMMISSION First Respondent WILLIE LEGOABE SERITI NO Second Respondent HENDRICK MMOLLI THEKISO MUSI NO Third Respondent THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND FourthRespondent CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH FifthRespondent AFRICA Sixth Respondent THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE Seventh Respondent THE MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT Contents INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 5 THE PARTIES........................................................................................................................... 7 OVERVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION ................................................................................. 11 THE STRATEGIC DEFENCE PROCUREMENT PACKAGE ............................................. 16 CALLS ON THE PRESIDENT TO APPOINT A COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY ............... 21 THE CRAWFORD-BROWNE LITIGATION........................................................................ 23 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION .............................................................. 25 THE TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................. 25 INVESTIGATORY POWERS AND RESOURCES OF THE COMMISSION ..................... 27 THE DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION ................................................................................. 28 RESIGNATIONS FROM THE COMMISSION ..................................................................... 32 THE ESSENCE OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PUBLIC ARENA ABOUT THE ARMS DEAL ....................................................................................................................................... 40 There was no rational basis or justification for embarking on the Arms Deal ............ 41 Equipment acquired as a result of the Arms Deal is either non-functional or ineffectively utilised ........................................................................................................... 43 The procurement process followed was tainted by serious irregularities .................... 44 The SDPP Contracts were tainted by corruption and investigations undertaken into the allegations of corruption were undermined by political interference .................... 56 A substantial portion of the Offsets never materialised ................................................. 65 Previous investigations into the SDPP had been truncated or hampered by incompetence and/or political interference ..................................................................... 68 THE FINDINGS OF THE JOINT INVESTIGATION REPORT ........................................... 71 Selection of the Preferred Bidder – ALFA ..................................................................... 73 Selection of the Preferred Bidder – LIFT ...................................................................... 74 Selection of the Preferred Bidder – Submarines ........................................................... 80 Selection of the Preferred Bidder – Corvettes ................................................................ 85 Selection of Subcontractors ............................................................................................ 88 Conflict of Interest – Schamin ‘Chippy’ Shaik.............................................................. 89 Allegations of Irregularity in the Selection of the System Management System (Corvette Combat Suite) .................................................................................................. 91 THE DRAFT AUDITOR GENERAL’S REPORT ................................................................. 91 Selection of the Preferred Bidder - ALFA ..................................................................... 92 Selection of the Preferred Bidder – LIFT ...................................................................... 93 Selection of the Preferred Bidders – ALFA and LIFT (Conclusion) ........................... 95 2 | P a g e Selection of the Preferred Bidder – Submarines ........................................................... 96 Selection of the Preferred Bidder – Corvettes .............................................................. 101 Selection of Subcontractors .......................................................................................... 102 THE FAILURE OF THE COMMISSION TO GATHER RELEVANT MATERIAL, CALL MATERIAL WITNESSES, AND INVESTIGATE PROPERLY EVIDENCE AND ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE BEFORE IT OR MADE AVAILABLE TO IT ................ 108 Failure to access and/or consider evidence emanating from criminal investigations: the shipping containers .................................................................................................... 109 Failure to access relevant records of criminal proceedings ......................................... 113 Failure to properly investigate allegations of wrongdoing in the Light Utility Helicopter contract .......................................................................................................... 137 Failure to properly investigate BAE’s settlement with the Department of State ...... 147 Failure to investigate the discounted vehicles ............................................................... 154 The Commission failed to timeously access relevant information from Swiss authorities ......................................................................................................................... 161 Failure to make reasonable attempts to obtain information from the West Indies and Liberia ............................................................................................................................... 164 Failure to secure any information from any overseas jurisdiction, and the implications for the Commission’s approach to evidence submitted to it .................. 165 THE FAILURE OF THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE THAT WAS HIGHLY MATERIAL TO THE ENQUIRY ........................................................................ 166 The Debevoise & Plimpton Report ................................................................................. 166 The German Police Report ............................................................................................. 178 The Draft Auditor General’s Reports ............................................................................ 203 The SDPP Contracts ........................................................................................................ 206 THE FAILURE OF THE COMMISSION TO TO SEEK OR ALLOW INFORMATION FROM MATERIAL WITNESSES........................................................................................ 210 Witnesses were not allowed to speak to documents that they had not authored or that described events to which they were not personally witness ....................................... 210 Witnesses could not give their opinions ......................................................................... 214 Newspaper articles were excluded .................................................................................. 218 Critic witnesses were not provided with documents ..................................................... 220 Critics received witness statements and documents too late to cross-examine other witnesses ............................................................................................................................ 226 Obstacles to the full participation of LHR’s clients ...................................................... 227 Obstacles to the full participation of Dr. Richard Young in testing evidence of witnesses ............................................................................................................................ 235 Critics were not provided the same resources in drafting their witness statements . 236 Dr Young ....................................................................................................................... 237 Colonel Du Plooy .......................................................................................................... 246 3 | P a g e Phase 2 Witnesses could not meet Evidence Leaders during Phase 1 ......................... 248 The Commission Erroneously Found That a Range of Evidence was Common Cause ............................................................................................................................................ 251 THE FAILURE OF THE COMMISSION TO TEST THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES BEFORE IT ........................................................................................................................... 264 The Commission’s Record of Re-Examination and Cross-Examination.................... 266 Failure to test the evidence of Chippy Shaik ................................................................. 268 Failure to Test the Evidence of Advocate Fana Hlongwane ........................................ 275 Failure to Require and Test Evidence by BAE Systems .............................................. 293 Failure to test evidence regarding the jobs created through the NIP program ......... 297 GROUNDS OF REVIEW...................................................................................................... 314 THE RELIEF SOUGHT .......................................................................................................