Citizen Alert ZA: Lugmag-hoë sê onder eed Zuma wás betrokke
No Fear No Favour No Traitors pleased.........
Donderdag 03 Oktober 2013 Suid-Afrika ERIKA GIBSON
Lt.kol. Christine Anderson praat met adv. Frikkie Greeff. Foto: Deaan Vivier
Pres. Jacob Zuma is vir die eerste keer direk en onder eed betrek by Guptagate.
’n Sleutelgetuie in die weermag se ondersoek na die landing van die Gupta-familie se bruilofsvlug uit Indië beweer Zuma en Bruce Koloane, voormalige hoof van staatsprotokol, het ’n ontmoeting gehad waartydens Zuma wou weet of “alles op koers is vir die vlug”.
Beeld kan onthul dat lt.kol. Christine Anderson, tweede in bevel by die Waterkloof-lugmagbasis se verplasingsentrale, Zuma betrek in haar eedsverklaring.
Anderson is een van vyf lugmaglede wat moontlik weens die voorval vervolg gaan word.
Sy bevestig voorts vir die eerste keer dat “Nommer Een” na Zuma verwys.
’n Vroeëre ondersoek deur die departement van justisie het bevind Koloane het minstens drie keer gesê hy voer “Nommer Een” se opdragte uit.
“Nommer Een is die President van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika. Ons verwys weens veiligheidsredes nooit na die president in telefoongesprekke nie,” sê Anderson in haar verklaring.
Die verklaring is deel van die rekord van die weermag se raad van ondersoek na die onreëlmatigheid van die vlug op 30 April vanjaar.
Beeld het gister dié dokumente onder oë gehad, op dieselfde dag wat die weermag se voorlopige ondersoek na die voorval begin het.
Dit is die eerste keer dat al die getuies voor die raad se getuienis nou bekend is. Die ondersoek moet bepaal of daar voldoende getuienis is om van die militêre lede, wat by die debakel betrokke was, militêr te vervolg.
Die ondersoek by die militêre regsafdeling se hoofkantoor by die Swartkop-lugmagbasis is geslote, maar ’n moontlike militêre hofsaak sal oop wees vir die publiek en die media.
Mac Maharaj, presidensiële woordvoerder, het gistermiddag by navraag gesê Zuma en die presidensie het hulle nog nooit uitgelaat oor enige besonderhede rakende die Gupta-debakel of oor die president se moontlike kennis van die reëlings of die gebeure nie.
“Ons het deurgaans volgehou die ondersoek moet alle inligting bepaal en dit is steeds ons standpunt,” het Maharaj gesê.
Die vroeëre justisie-ondersoek het bevind dat Koloane gelieg het oor Zuma se rol. Hy het sedertdien skuld beken in ’n departementele tugverhoor en is veronderstel om vandeesmaand terug te keer na die departement van internasionale betrekkinge en samewerking in ’n laer posisie.
In die bevindings het die presidensie beklemtoon dat Zuma “in geen stadium” aan Koloane enige opdragte gegee het nie.
Die presidensie het ontken dat Zuma of sy kantoor ooit ’n versoek vir so ’n landing van enige mens hoegenaamd ontvang het en Koloane beskuldig van naamgooiery.
Die aanvanklike ondersoek het bevind dat Koloane die naam van Zuma misbruik het, maar het nie bepaal hoekom Koloane tot sulke uiterstes sou gegaan het nie.
In die eerste volledige weergawe van gebeure in Anderson se eie woorde sê sy Koloane het haar aan die begin van April vanjaar een aand gebel om te hoor of Waterkloof geskik sou wees vir die landing.
Hy het gesê dit was vir ’n “kulturele geleentheid”.
“Hy het ook gesê dat daar twee ministers aan boord gaan wees en dat Nommer Een weet van die vlug.”
Volgens haar het sy bevestig dat dit moontlik is dat die vliegtuig daar kan land, mits die nodige magtigings daarvoor verskaf word.
’n Afvaardiging van die Indiese hoë kommissariaat het vervolgens na die geriewe by die basis gaan kyk. Anderson het hulle rondgewys en ook aan hulle genoem dat die basis se instrumentlandingstelsel buite werking was weens herstelwerk.
Kort daarna het Koloane haar weer gebel.
“Hy het my ingelig dat hy pas van die president af kom en dat die president wil weet ‘of alles op koers is vir die vlug’.
“Ek het vir hom gesê ons wag steeds vir die oorvlugklaring en dat ons so gou as wat ons dít het die vlug kan finaliseer.”
Sowat 200 huweliksgaste van die Gupta-familie, wat noue bande met Zuma het, het met ’n gehuurde Airbus op Waterkloof geland, vanwaar hulle na Sun City vervoer is vir die troue.
‘Ons kan niks doen, dis ryk mense’
Aanhalings uit die getuienis voor die raad van ondersoek:
• “Geen ontleding agterna oor die leemtes in die veiligheidsreëlings (rondom die Gupta-vliegtuig) het plaasgevind nie. Ek het net klagtes van die implikasies en bekommernisse ontvang.” – Lt.kol. Y.C. Govender, bevelvoerder van 504 Sekerheidseskader.
• “(My bevelvoerder) het vir my gesê die Guptas is ryk mense en daar is niks wat ons omtrent die saak kan doen nie.” – Maj. Elsie Makgopela, 504 Sekerheidseskader.
• “Die Gupta-gaste en die groep wat hulle ontvang het, was in beheer van die BBP-gebied. Die basispersoneel was hoegenaamd nié in beheer nie.” – Maj. Elsie Makgopela.
• “Ek het eers nadat die vliegtuig geland het vir die eerste keer van die Guptas gehoor. Sedertdien het ek dié van baie keer gehoor.” – Maj. Elsie Makgopela.
• “In my 36 jaar werkondervinding was dit (die Gupta-landing) vreemd en abnormaal.” – Adj.off. Riaan von Bentheim.
• “Dit was duidelik dat dié vliegtuig nooit toegelaat moes word om op Waterkloof of enige ander lugmagbasis te land nie.” – Kol. Maritz Visser, logistieke koördineerder van Waterkloof.
• “Ek het kol. Visser (wat die Gupta-groep ingevolge protokol moes verwelkom) gevra wat aangaan, maar hy het selfs verwarder gelyk.” – Lt.kol. Daisy Mdluli, voormalige bevelvoerder van Waterkloof se verplasingsentrale.
• “Die verhouding tussen my en lt.kol. Christine Anderson was sleg en toksies.” – Lt.kol. Daisy Mdluli.
** Rea​d this report in English
GUPTAS: Lieutenant Colonel Anderson has implicated the president under oath
PRESIDENT Jacob Zuma has — for the first time directly and under oath — been implicated in Guptagate.
A key witness in the army’s probe of the Gupta family landing their wedding guests at Waterkloof air force base said Zuma and Bruce Koloane, the former head of state protocol, had a meeting in which Zuma wanted to know “if everything was on track for the flight”.
Lieutenant-Colonel Christine Anderson, second-in-command at the Water­kloof movement control centre, in her statement on the incident, has implicated Zuma under oath.
Anderson is one of five air force members who may be prosecuted because of the incident.
She confirmed for the first time that “Number One” refers to Zuma.
An earlier investigation by the Department of Justice showed that Koloane had said at least three times that he was executing the orders of “Number One”.
“Number One is the president of the republic of South Africa. For security reasons we never refer to the president in telephone conversations,” said Anderson.
The statement forms part of the military inquiry’s investigation of irregularities that led to the Gupta landing at a military air base on April 30.
Sister paper Beeld saw the documents yesterday, as the army’s preliminary investigation into the incident started.
It is the first time that all the evidence before the council has been made available to the media. The preliminary investigation must determine if there is sufficient evidence to militarily prosecute the officers who were involved in the debacle.
The investigation by the military legal division’s head office at the Swartkop air force base is closed to the public, but the possible court martials will be open to the public and media.
Presidential spokesperson Mac Maharaj yesterday said that Zuma and the presidency had not made any statements on the Gupta debacle or on the president’s possible knowledge of arrangements of the events and that the presidency maintains that the investigation must determine all the information.
The Justice investigation found that Koloane had lied on Zuma’s role. He has since admitted guilt in a departmental disciplinary hearing and has been demoted in the Department of International Relations and Co-operation.
The presidency stressed in the Justice probe that Zuma “at no stage” gave any orders to Koloane. The presidency denied that Zuma or his office had received any request for such a landing from anybody and that Koloane was guilty of name dropping. The initial investigation found that Koloane had abused Zuma’s name, but did not determine why he would have gone to such extremes.
Anderson said Koloane had called her one evening at the start of April to ask if Waterkloof would be suitable for the Guptas’ guests to land.
He said it was a “cultural affair”.
“He also said there would be two ministers on board and that Number One knows about the flight.”
She said she confirmed the plane would be able to land if it had the necessary clearances. A delegation of the Indian High Commission then inspected the facilities at the base. Shortly after the inspection, Koloane called her again.
“He informed me that he had returned from the president and that the president wanted to know ‘if everything is still on track for the flight’.
“I informed him that we were awaiting the overflight clearance and once this was received, we would be able to finalise the movement of the passengers.”
About 200 wedding guests of the Gupta family landed in a chartered Airbus at Waterkloof and were transported to Sun City.
In his evidence before the council, Lieutenant-General Jeremiah Mduduzi Nyembe, head of Defence Intelligence (previously Military Intelligence) yesterday said he had also advised Mike Ramagoma, the minister of Defence’s political adviser, “that allowing the Gupta flight to Waterkloof would have serious political implications. After that he informed me that the minister had decided not to allow the flight.”
JOHANNESBURG 4 SEPTEMBER 2013
Zuma the Houdini: No smoking gun, no fingerprints
RANJENI MUNUSAMI SOUTH AFRICA 4 OCTOBER 2013 01:54
There was a bout of excitement on social media and news bulletins on Thursday morning after Beeld newspaper revealed that a senior air force official had implicated President Jacob Zuma in the landing of a jet carrying guests of the Gupta family at the Waterkloof Air Force Base. The Democratic Alliance reacted promptly to call for a fresh round of investigations to probe whether Zuma had a direct hand in the scandal. But like so many times before, it is difficult to pin Zuma down with incriminating evidence. Many have tried, no one has succeeded so far. That’s because Zuma always covers his own tracks. By RANJENI MUNUSAMY.
During the 1990s, there were legendary stories about the returning ANC exiles and their heroic encounters to outsmart the Apartheid government. Some of these stories were about Jacob Zuma, who at various stages was involved in the ANC’s underground machinery in Swaziland, then Mozambique and later as chief of intelligence at the ANC head office in Lusaka.
At an ANC social gathering in Durban, the host of the party was telling a story about how Zuma once sneaked into South Africa and casually sat down next to a security branch policeman who was had been looking for him. Because Zuma was so brazen, the policeman did not notice that it was him. The host of the party was telling the story in order to introduce Zuma, who was to speak next.
Zuma chuckled along with the crowd, but when his turn came to speak, he changed the subject. This was a story he could have dined out on for years to come, but he chose not to. In fact, Zuma rarely, if ever, talks about his own deeds and operations in the ANC. He loves, however, to tell tales about other heroic leaders of the ANC and the shared experiences in exile. It is quite curious that years after the end of Apartheid, Zuma’s default reaction is to protect information about himself and those who worked with him.
It is why there is so little documented information about Zuma and his role in the liberation struggle. It is also why it has been so difficult to pin him down on the litany of allegations against him in recent years. If there is something sensitive that Zuma is dealing with, there will be no paper trail – at least not anything that he himself would have written down.
In the corruption case against Zuma, the top of the evidence pile was the famous encrypted fax written by Alain Thetard of the French arms company previously known as Thint and Schabir Shaik’s record of funds he gave to Zuma. Zuma, however, made no record of any deal between the three of them.
Opposition parties and the media have similarly been searching for a paper trail which implicates Zuma directly in the excessive state spending on security upgrades at his Nkandla home. It would stand to reason that work done at the president’s private home must have had Zuma’s consent or involvement. But so far, all that has been produced to show that Zuma was informed about the upgrades is a letter addressed to him, and signed by the then Public Works Minister Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde and other officials of the department on 5 November 2010.
The letter titled “Nkandla: security installations at the private residence of his excellency President Jacob Zuma” states “Having assumed duty as the minister of public works on the 1 November 2010, I have taken the view that it is prudent to update you on the progress of the above prestige project.”
But Zuma and the government have, however, consistently denied that he had input on the upgrades. The hunt is still on for the smoking gun to show that he did, but it is unlikely that any documentary evidence or testimony to this effect can be produced.
In August the Sunday Times ran a lead story based on an interview with the ousted leader of the Central African Republic (CAR) Francois Bozize. Since the deaths of 15 South Africa soldiers during combat in that country in March, there had been controversy about why SA troops were deployed to the CAR and the nature of their mission.
The Sunday Times tracked down Bozize holed up in Paris possibly to see whether the deposed leader would provide a narrative different to that of the South African government and showing that Zuma had another agenda when he deployed the troops. But all Bozize was able to say was that Zuma had promised to send more troops to Bangui and as a result of him reneging, there was a coup.
Again, no smoking gun.
When dealing with political opponents, it is similarly difficult to detect Zuma’s direct hand. History will show that in the build-up to the recall of Thabo Mbeki, it was Zuma who tried to stop it when he said there was no point beating a “dead snake”. Although the recall was Zuma’s final triumph over Mbeki, there is nobody in the ANC or elsewhere who would be able to say the idea came from Zuma. In fact, nobody knows for sure where the idea germinated before it was blurted out by former ANC Youth League president Julius Malema.
Malema blames his own downfall on Zuma, claiming the president engineered his disciplinary charges and eventual suspension from the ANC. Again, no proof of this. It’s supposition often repeated by Malema and his supporters, which Zuma no longer bothers to deny. There is sufficient evidence to show Malema dug his own grave and nothing can be produced to suggest that his demise was plotted elsewhere.
With all that has gone before, it is surprising that some people think that they will find Zuma’s fingerprints on the Gupta plane landing at Waterkloof Air Force Base. Beeld reported that Lieutenant Colonel Christine Anderson, one of five members of the South African National Defence Force charged before a military court in connection with the landing of the jet carrying Gupta wedding guests, confirmed in a sworn affidavit that the “Number One” referred to in relation with the incident was indeed Zuma.
Bruce Koloane, at the time chief of state protocol, allegedly claimed that instructions for the private plane to be allowed to land at the air base had come from “Number One”.
According to Beeld, Anderson said in her affidavit: “On or about 17 April 2013, Mr Koloane phoned me and he informed me that he had returned from the president and that the president wanted to know ‘if everything is still on track for the flight’.
Presidential spokesman Mac Maharaj said there was “no truth” in the allegation in Anderson’s affidavit. “It is not based on fact, it is based on hearsay,” Maharaj said.
Government spokesmen also responded saying the state task team of directors-general which investigated the matter had already established that the president’s name had been dropped so there was nothing new to the claim.
In response to the story, and resultant surge on social media, the Democratic Alliance’s parliamentary leader Lindiwe Mazibuko said she would take “a number of immediate steps to ensure that President Zuma answers for fresh allegations”. These include tabling a draft resolution in Parliament requesting the establishment of a special ad hoc committee to investigate the matter, submitting a question for oral response to the president and asking Public Protector Thuli Madonsela to investigate the president’s involvement.
But the ANC said it would “not allow Parliament to be dragged into what is clearly a figment of one MP’s overzealous imagination”, meaning it will block Mazibuko’s motion for an ad hoc committee investigation.
There have been suggestions by Anderson’s representative Pikkie Greef that Zuma could be subpoenaed to the military court to respond to the allegation that Koloane was acting on his instruction.
This is unlikely to happen. The military court would probably balk at the idea of the state president appearing before it. Besides, there is no confirmatory affidavit from Koloane to elevate Anderson’s claim beyond hearsay. Koloane has already taken the hit for the incident and has been demoted. Thanks to his cooperation and silence, he still has a job in the state.
Whether or not there was a discussion between Koloane and Zuma will be virtually impossible to prove. Anderson’s representatives could ask for the president’s diary to be subpoenaed but it is unlikely that an official meeting between the two had been scheduled to discuss the plane landing. There might even want to check the visitor’s book at the presidency, but even if there is an entry for B Koloane, there are over 300 staff members in the presidency. There is no way of showing that Koloane had been there to see Zuma.
The fact is, unless Koloane speaks up, all this would be a wild goose chase. There is never going to be a record of a conversation which says “Bruce, make sure my friends’ plane at Waterkloof or else...” It does not exist. It is simply not Zuma’s modus operandi.
President Jacob Zuma lives by the principle of plausible deniability and information on a need to know basis. If there is anything that occurs that could result in a backlash, Zuma’s fingerprints will not be detectable. Apart from the rape trial, when there was no way to deny the sexual encounter with the complainant, it has been impossible to hold Zuma answerable for any of the allegations against him.
Every now and then, the history produces a resilient, hard-wearing leader whose street-smarts outstrip anything anyone from the same generation can offer; Zuma is such a leader. He rose to the nation's top job without being seen as openly ambitious, he controls the ANC strongly without having to raise his voice and he commands an army of "friends" without having to get his hands dirty. He gets his way but leaves no trace. And while it is not impossible that the "smoking gun" linking him directly to any of scandals may finally emerge, it still remains an unlikely prospect. Many have tried, but Zuma is still standing. DM
Photo: Jacob Zuma as the great escape artist Harry Houdini
Natuurlik het Zuma geweet.
Hierdie voorval sou nooit gebeur het sonder Zuma se medewete nie.
Hy moet volle verantwoordelikheid vir die voorval neem!
Hy behoort nie in die pos van president van SA NIE.
LAAT ONS HOM NOU UITSTEM!!
....."THE SOUTH AFRICAN PRESIDENT BY DEFAULT!".....
Mac Maharaj your Communistic Propaganda and deception does not work any more , go on pension!
WE ALL GET SENILE WITH AGE ITS HEREDITARY, YOU KNOW.
NO 1 HAS BEEN AS GUILTY AS SIN EVER SINCE HE CAME OFF THE ISLAND.
Posted by Sonny Cox at 1:29 AM
Henrietta October 3, 2013 at 5:04 AM
Maar ons WEET mos, want Orwell het in Animal Farm vir ons MOOI gesê: "Some animals are more equal that others" :)
Sonny Cox October 3, 2013 at 12:14 PM
Now Winkly Maharaj says the statement under oath was not tested in Court?
Some influential's wiggle their way out of going to Court to be placed under oath!!
WHERE IS JUSTICE IN SOUTH AFRICA.....?