Services
25 March 2006
Subsequent to the release of the report of the Inspector-General of
Intelligence (IGI) on the authenticity of the allegedly intercepted e-mails and
chat-room conversations, we as the Heads of the Intelligence and Security
Services have been briefed and discussed the said report. After an in-depth
analysis of the report, we have, without reservation, accepted the findings of
the IGI.
The alleged intercepted e-mails and chat-room conversations are patently
fraudulent. They were never intercepted but manufactured.
We also wish to point out that even if the e-mails and chat-room
conversations were authentic, they would have still been illegal because, as
required by law, no permission was granted by the judge to conduct them.
Further, we are bound to carry out the decision of Cabinet, in this regard,
that the institutions we are responsible for pursue any administrative, policy
and legal matters that arise from the report of the IGI.
The Heads of the Intelligence and Security Services have a responsibility to
preserve the integrity of the institutions they head and to ensure that at all
times they carry our their functions in accordance with the prescripts of the
Constitution and relevant legislation. Indeed, it is the primary responsibility
of these institutions of the state to protect the constitutional order of our
country and the rights of its citizens.
Against this background, we noted with concern comments that called into
question the integrity of the person of the IGI.
In our view - and knowing that the IGI only featured in the now confirmed
fabricated e-mails and chat-room conversations once a decision to conduct the
investigation was taken � the IGI, and indeed other officials, were maliciously
targeted in order to paralyse the relevant institutions and functionaries of
the state from carrying out their lawful responsibilities.
We are very concerned by the incidents of the manufacturing of false
intelligence as found by the IGI and the fact that, contrary to convention, the
National Intelligence Agency (NIA) did a poor job of evaluating the veracity
thereof. With justification, it can be said that the NIA was in fact prevented
from verifying the authenticity of the e-mails.
We have been very embarrassed by all the events surrounding the alleged
intercepted e-mails and chat-room conversations. Events around them smack of
and remind us of the pre-1994 intelligence dispensation.
The type of behaviour we have witnessed is clearly inimical to the values
espoused in the country�s Constitution, relevant legislation and the ethics we
are building into how we carry out our responsibilities.
We wish to state categorically that the office of the IGI fulfils a
constitutional function and all our institutions must be subject to oversight
by that office, among others. It is an office with a responsibility to guard
against exactly the type of conduct that permitted the fraudulent manufacturing
of e-mails and chat-room conversations.
Certainly and where relevant, we need to be mindful of past incidents where
�vexatious intelligence� about functionaries of the state has been
mischievously put for the attention of government.
To that extent, we shall institute such measures, collectively and within
the NIA in particular, to prevent such a development from recurring.
For inquiries contact: Lorna Daniels
Cell: 082 418 3389
Issued by: Government Communications (GCIS)
25 March 2006
