Probe into Gupta plane landing was ‘not a whitewash’ of Zuma – Sindane

Department of transport former director-general (DG) Nonkululeko Sindane has shrugged off criticism that she and members of a team of senior government officials who investigated the infamous 2013 landing of the Jet Airways plane ferrying 200 Gupta guests at the Air Force Base Waterkloof, came up with a report that cleared former president Jacob Zuma, to be rewarded with senior government positions.

The criticism was fuelled by the Waterkloof probe investigators landing top government jobs in the Zuma administration.

They are:

• Tom Moyane, who was promoted from correctional services national commissioner to the position of SA Revenue Service commissioner;
• Former state security agency acting DG Thulani Dlomo, who became ambassador to Algeria;
• Former intelligence coordinator Clinton Swemmer, who became the South African Diplomat to the United Nations; and
• Sindane, who left government to head a private company that benefitted from government contracts.

Asked to respond to the criticism during cross-examination yesterday by Commission of Inquiry into State Capture senior counsel Thandi Norman, that the crime prevention and security cluster (JCPS) probe she was part of absolved Zuma for his alleged involvement in the plane landing, leading the investigation team being promoted in government, Sindane said she was “not the president’s keeper”.

“I want to put it on record, I did not defend the president. People we interviewed during the investigation, who included former transport minister Ben Martins and Ambassador Bruce Koloane, denied being instructed by the president to authorise the plane landing at the Waterkloof Air Force Base. They could not link him to the landing.

“What we then decided to do was to go and find out under what law or regulation the president could have ordered the landing,” said Sindane.

Koloane, who has been at the centre of the probe for having authorised the landing, became ambassador to the Netherlands after taking the fall for the Waterkloof incident.

The tainted diplomat flew into the country this week to listen to evidence from witnesses who testified before Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, implicating him in the Waterkloof saga.

Dressed in a dark suit and surrounded by his legal team, a pensive Koloane listened attentively to testimonies by Sindane and Major Thabo Ntshisi – a warrant officer at the time who reluctantly carried out orders from Koloane and Colonel Christine Anderson, to process the landing of the Gupta aircraft at Waterkloof.

Asked by Zondo why her team could not interview Zuma during the Waterkloof government investigation, Sindane responded: “No, we did not pursue the president because we ought to have been led by someone who could confirm having been instructed by him.

“Telephonic recordings we had were only limited to conversations of people talking telephonically and making mention of ‘Number One’.

“It was more of name-dropping and hearsay. Based on this, we were persuaded not to insist on meeting the president,” explained Sindane.

Zondo asked: “You wanted to interview the president because ‘Number One’ kept on being mentioned?”

Sindane replied that “we wanted to understand what this was all about and were told by the DG in the Presidency that the president is not involved in authorising landing of aircraft”.

Having implicated Koloane and Anderson for the plane landing, Sindane said there was “a variation of facts” given to junior officials, who had to process and oversee the aircraft landing.

“It was said to be a wedding and then a delegation likely which comprised four heads of state and ministers.

“It was woolly in the real nature,” she said.

Despite the JCPS report having recommended action to be taken against those responsible, Sindane said nothing was done.

Hearings on the Gupta plane landing are set to continue tomorrow.

The timeline of events:

Pre-arrival phase – February 2013: The first interaction occurred in February 2013 between Tony Gupta, the chief of state protocol, Ambassador Bruce Koloane, former minister Ben Martins and the acting CEO of ACSA.

Shortly thereafter the Gupta family approached the minister of defence and military veterans and the minister’s political advisor. This direct approach was improper.

2 April 2013: The subsequent interaction on April 2, 2013 between the chief of state protocol and the political advisor to the minister of defence and military veterans on the wedding of the Gupta family was again improper.

Between April 2 and 4, 2013: The approach transitioned from one characterised by the involvement of government officials in a family matter to an official diplomatic approach, facilitated by Ashu Chawla. The following “improper” actions were noted: Firstly, the Indian High Commission failed to provide a note verbally to the department of international relations and cooperation; this was a serious infringement of diplomatic protocol. The Indian High Commission admitted as much. Secondly, the request was one for “diplomatic overflight and landing clearance”; this was a misrepresentation of the nature of the visit. Thirdly, the purpose of the flight was listed as “delegation visit” – again a misrepresentation.

April 9, 2013: The chief of state protocol took it upon himself to facilitate an illegal request for landing. First, he spoke directly to the command post, falsely stating there would be four to five ministers on the flight. He also mentioned the minister of transport, the minister of defence and military veterans, and the president in an effort to pressure the command post to issue the clearance, but then said no one had told him to assist with the landing of the aircraft.

Arrival phase – April 2013: It was found that “the manner in which the aircraft was managed was in full compliance with international protocols”.

During the arrival, no VIPs were identified or brought to the attention of the officials present.

After the landing, several officials “agreed that the flight should never have landed there”.

None of the visitors presented themselves with their passports.

These failures represent an infringement of the Customs and Excise Act of 1964.

Post-arrival phase: Despite the requirement that the flight be issued with a foreign operators permit prior to arrival, this was not done in the case of Flight JAI 9900.

The use of official firearms was an infringement of the Firearms Control Act. The use of false vehicle number plates was an infringement of the Road Traffic Act.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.