South African Arms Deal

A critical banner on the Central Methodist Mission in Cape Town compares the Arms Deal to a golden calf.

The Strategic Defence Package, popularly known as the Arms Deal, was a major defence procurement programme undertaken to re-equip the South African armed forces for the post-apartheid era. It is commonly associated with the large-scale corruption that is alleged to have taken place during and after the procurement process. Some critics have said that the Arms Deal was a defining moment or turning point for the African National Congress (ANC) government, less than five years into its tenure.[1][2][3][4]

Following decades of sanctions and a major review of its functions and strategy, the Department of Defence sought to modernise its defence equipment and prepare to participate in a broader range of peace-keeping, defensive, and possibly offensive operations outside South Africa's borders. In 1998, Parliament and the cabinet of President Nelson Mandela, both dominated by the ANC, approved a Defence Review Report which entailed large scale procurement of defence equipment. In December 1999, the government signed contracts with European countries for the procurement of corvettes, submarines, trainer aircraft, fighter aircraft, and helicopters worth about R30 billion, primarily for the use of the South African Navy and South African Air Force.[5][6] Because of the financing arrangements and exchange rate fluctuations, the true cost of the contracts – only finally paid off in October 2020 – is estimated at far more, although the government's total expenditure on the package has never been disclosed.[7]

From the outset, the Arms Deal was criticised on multiple fronts. Some critics questioned the justifiability of the scale and cost of the package, while others questioned the strategic usefulness or prudence of specific contracts under the package. Most public attention, however, was focused on allegations that improper procurement processes had been followed. Each of the five major programmes of the package ultimately became subject to such allegations, which often extended to allegations of profiteering by ANC politicians, including through fraud, corruption, bribery, racketeering and/or money laundering. At least three former cabinet ministers – Joe Modise, Siphiwe Nyanda, and Stella Sigcau – and two former Presidents – Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma – have been accused of improperly benefiting from the contracts. Few of the allegations have been proven or prosecuted, and most were dismissed by the Seriti Commission, a judicial inquiry which ran from 2011 to 2016 and whose findings were overturned in 2019.[8] The only individuals convicted on charges relating to the deal were former ANC Chief Whip Tony Yengeni and Zuma's financial advisor Schabir Shaik, although a criminal case is ongoing against Zuma and one of the Arms Deal subcontractors, Thales.[9]

  1. ^ "Arms deal a turning point for SA: activists". IOL. 27 February 2014. Retrieved 20 December 2021.
  2. ^ Marrian, Natasha (15 July 2021). "SA's 'original sin': the arms deal". Business Day. Retrieved 20 December 2021.
  3. ^ "De Lille weighs in on arms deal court case". eNCA. 12 June 2019. Retrieved 21 December 2021.
  4. ^ Grootes, Stephen (28 October 2011). "Two and a half cheers for the Arms Deal terms of reference". Daily Maverick. Retrieved 23 December 2021.
  5. ^ Sylvester, Justin; Seegers, Annette (2008). "South Africa's Strategic Arms Package: a critical analysis". Scientia Militaria: South African Journal of Military Studies. 36 (1). doi:10.5787/36-1-45. hdl:11427/24227. ISSN 2224-0020.
  6. ^ Willie, Seriti (2015). "Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of Fraud, Corruption, Impropriety or Irregularity in the Strategic Defence Procurement Package". South African Government. Retrieved 20 December 2021.
  7. ^ Holden, Paul (17 August 2020). "The R142bn bomb: Revisiting the cost of the Arms Deal, twenty years on". Daily Maverick. Retrieved 20 December 2021.
  8. ^ Nicolson, Greg (21 August 2019). "Seriti findings a failure: 'Inexplicable' for commission to ignore evidence of corruption". Daily Maverick. Retrieved 23 December 2021.
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Erasmus-2021 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search