101105_dramat to scopa justifying closure of arms probe

7/31/2019 101105_Dramat to Scopa Justifying Closure of Arms Probe

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/101105dramat-to-scopa-justifying-closure-of-arms-probe 1/4

CFaudf ~ P ok eCN ~ "'' . CP ~ P cdi~aai ~

Private Bag X15 00, Silvsrton, 0122 Fav.I4o: (0123046 4400

Your reference rHE DEPUTY MATlQI4AI.CQIIIIIISSIOI4ER

II4f reference $2714I2 DIRECTORATE FOR PRIORff Y CRIINEINVESTIGATION

Enquiries Lt Gert A OramaiSOUTH AFRICAN POUCE SERVICE

Tel (012j 840 4001SILVERTON

Honourable Mr T Godi

Chairperson: Standing Cofnrnittee on Public Accounts (SCOPA)ParliamentP 0 Box15CAPE TGNN

STATUS OF THE BAE AND GFC INVESTIGATIONS

First, I would like to express my sincere apology for the fnisunderstanding regarding fnyreply to you on the above-mentioned matter The Directorate tof Priority Crimeinvestigation sent the reply through the required channels of the South African PoliceService ori the 05 Noveffiber 201 0. We only learnt through media reports that the replyhad not reached you.

Phase find attached the reply and i would like to assure you that there was no intentionon our part to disrespect your oflice or the person of the Chairlnan of Scopa. Onceagain, we would like to express our humble apology.

Kind regards,

L)ELITENANT GENERALHEAD." DIRECTORATE FOR PRIORITY CRIINE INYESTIGATIOIC

DEPUTY NATIONAL COIIINSSIQNER: SOUTH AFRICAN DOUCE SERVICEA ORAIIAT



F4~~A~>~ @~i %~I cW/ tu«~ 9LAiar> ~!~8'k

> »riage ace x t s M FaX I>io: (01 2 j S>IS 44$

' m.r rei~r-rtee THE DEPU > YI>IATION AL CmrTrji>>ISSIO¹aDIRECTORATE Foa PRIORITY CRIME

r,;v >">- - e>RE;» s I/>AP$ INVESTIGATIONSOUTH tu'RICA!>I PotjCE sERv!CE

Lt GeNt or~at SII VERTVI>I

t01 2'i 8>!6 40I!4

Mr T. GodiVl »>>I> I>>«> S»> •

r « , » »> » rl

Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCQPA)p»I 4»~e»!

PQ Box 15CAPE TOsN8000

Dear Mr Godi

STATUS OF THE BAE AND GIFC IMVESTlGATtONS

Your letter, dated 26 October 2010, in respect of the above rnatter has reference

lt was indicated at the meeting ot' 8 September 2010 that the BAF and GFC matterswere subm~ to t he Na i„'onal P!oswtihirg Authority for guidance. The National

Prosecuting Authority ind!Cated that the information at hand does not lay a basis for fo,—„,u~",",g ar.y cdmina! ~charges at th!s stage and that without intensive inv~mtigation aninfoITned decision cannot be made.

The Hawks indeed took over the EIAE matter from the National Prosecuting Authority.The G-C complain' ."dA Dr Yo ..g c mp fainant, has been laid with the SouthAfrican Police Service after the Hawks became operational on 6 July 2{X}9 Thcallegations i!, the GFC matter are based on dlerent facts> but are related lo the broaderarms deal.

Since the interaction between!nymJf. the NPA and SCOPA, l have requested anevaluate>onfiona an o Bi35onat and jn>v Loafe po!nt of v!ew o( the two matters andhave been advised of the following

Since 2003, the Directorate of Special Operations (DSO) did not actively pursu theBAF IOVeStigat!On Ti re matter WaS On>ly tO «Ome erat~>nt reVIVed W!th the Ir !fOrmal

imeraction between the OSCARand the United Kingdom (UK) Sedious Fraud Office {SFO)whicli j~c" to the fri>a!isa~on of the UK!nvestj<ahor s through a pisa anarrgement. This

arrangement, l am advised, does not assist the South African invesbgation. The South%1carr Author»>eswe>ra a~~ ., t consulted in conduding the arrangement.



As a result of the Iong period af time during which the investigation was stagnant, andihe " c af 8.e L ! K (BAF) rnatter, there are various effects upon a possible

successful investigation and eventual prosecution of the rnatter There was no continuityin t",e inve~ ;o n . Wh!!Ist the investigation was ongoing with the DSG before 2003,

there was a turnover in the prosecutors, investigators as weII as the forensic auditcape,"„whch means that the rnatter will basicatly need to be reinvestigated framscratch. In the meantime. as a result of the time lapse of about ten years sirlce thea'leged eveVx occurred, some companies allegedly involved in the rnatter da not existanymore, some key witnesses are either abroad, are deceased or are no more in thepasi5ons i™ the Departments o!' organisatlans where they served, meaning they wouldnat have automatic access to documentation and infarmalion which would be essentialto prepare 'W~entts or assist the investigators. This could to some extent beovercome through warrants, but even the location of documents might be problematic.Sa» " pe ons who frere irnpllcate4 as oosslbie suspects are also deceased, includingthe late Min!ster of Defence, Mr J Modise.

ft is also clear in many Instances that requests to render mutual legal assistance +~II beof a specuI~Jve nature. Even in~atigative efforts in South Africa in many instanceswould bail down to a fishing expedition without any prospect af success This is as a~+suit of the wide-™ng!ng BIWat!Ons and a lack af sp&clf!c Information an theseallegations. Although these factors, viewed in Isolation normally waukl not lead to thestopping of an lnv~tJ~~tion, they need to be weighed against the prospects of aninvestigation that wouid lead to prosecution, which seems unlikely. The Investigationw"uld req«!re mutual legal ~istance on a massive scale into bank!ng accounts forwhich records may not be accessible any more„ in view of banking laws requiring inma„ i Instanc,os rer~rds to be kept far five vears only,'

Letters af request relating to the BAE rMtter, have been approved by a Judge in

chambers ta Lichtenstein, Switzerland, Jersey and the UK, as far back as Dec rnberZgrN, and forwarded to the Department of Justice and Gonstitutional Oevelaprrtent. It isunderstood that the letters of request to Jersey, the UK and Switzerland were nevers»b!o+~ by the Central Authority in South Africa to the Central Authorities in thosecountries, whilst the letter of request to Lichtenstein was sent, but recalled by theCentra> A~ +arity in South Africa. It is understood that the reason for non-submission afthe three letters of request to the Jersey, UK and Swiss authorities and the: recall of theletter of request to Lichtenstein. was the report of the Joint Investigation Teamcomprising of the Auditor General, the National Prosecuting At&any and the Pubhcprotector and subrniutted ta 5COPA.

I am also infamled that a pmservation order. abtained hy the South African AssetForfeiture Unit in terms of the Prevention Of Organised Crime Act, I 998, was granted by

J dge in chambers,!n res~ o f a bank account in Lichtenstein, but abandoned bythe National Prosecuting Authority following submissions made ta the Nationalpras~~t!ng Authority,.by the respondent. tn respect of the lette!s of request, and thepmservation order, I believe that the Department af Justice and ConstitutionalDevelop!neat and the National Prosecuting Authority respectively, are in a betterposibon to provide more information on these issues should it be required.



The ar9urnents relating to the effect of the time that has elapsed since the allegedevents took place are. equally applicable to the GFC rnatter

I have, based on operational reasons and taking into account the bleak prospects of asuccessful investigation of the two matters, decided to close both investjgations.

I trust this wiN be of assistance to the Committee

Vfrih kind regards,

UEUVMANT GENERALHFAD: DIRECTORATE FOR PWORITY CNIIE INVESTIGATIONDEPUTY HAIlOI4AL COWIISSIOMER: SOUCI AFNCAM ROUGE SENESCEA DRAIIAT

101105_dramat to scopa justifying closure of arms probe

Documents