Aside from concerns about corruption in the Arms Deal, there is also evidence that raises serious questions about whether the procurement process itself was irregular.
Draft Versions of the Auditor-General’s Report
In 2001, the now notorious Joint Investigation Report was published. This report on the selection process in the Arms Deal was the result of a three-pronged investigation by the Scorpions, Public Protector and Auditor-General. It made a number of findings of widespread irregularity, but nevertheless concluded that no impropriety was found in the Arms Deal.
But there were unexplained last-minute revisions made to the report before it was released.
When draft versions of the Auditor-General’s section of the report surfaced (they were released to Richard Young, an unsuccessful bidder in the process), they indicated that there had been major and crucial edits to this text before it was finalised in the Joint Investigation Report. The full draft of the Auditor-General’s Report indicates that the selection process was shot through with irregularities. It is unclear why these findings were removed from the final report.
- Read the full draft of the Auditor-General’s Report HERE.
A different draft indicating problems with the submarine selection, which seems to have been compiled after the version posted above, was also released to Richard Young. It found that, after correcting for errors, the winning German Submarine Consortium was not the best bidder.
- Read the draft of the Auditor-General’s Report indicating problems with the submarine selection HERE.