Academics specialising in defence matters, politicians, activists and journalists are all questioning whether it is closed season for transparency at the SA National Defence Force.
They fear a communication gap has opened between the military and themselves and that this will widen into a crisis of credibility.
All are reporting difficulty obtaining information on policy matters and even run-of-the-mill issues, such as the state of welfare of troops deployed on peacekeeping assignments.
As a result, they fear whether two policy documents currently being updated by the Department of Defence (DoD) -- apparently without public input -- will be republished after being reworked.
The two documents -- the Defence White Paper and Defence Review -- were drawn up and published in 1996 and 1998 respectively after lengthy public consultations.
Supporting their fear is that the military's plan to revitalise its staff by the end of this decade, dubbed "HR2010", although adopted by Cabinet well over a year ago and having the date June 2002 on its cover, has still not been made public.
After the Tempe massacre in September 1999 when a disgruntled black officer killed and wounded a number of white colleagues at a military base in Bloemfontein, the DoD cut back links with the press.
The military's network of media liaison officers was dismantled and armed forces personnel were prohibited from speaking to the press without ministerial approval -- apparently because Lekota was embarrassed by contradictory statements in the media. He was annoyed to read about the seriousness of racial tension in the military in newspapers rather than reports from his staff.
This has led to some bizarre situations such as a reporter wanting to interview troops safeguarding the election in KwaZulu-Natal earlier this year being told to speak to Lekota's spokesman in Pretoria who would in turn speak to the soldiers.
The journalist afterwards said he was flabbergasted that he was expected to do a face-to-face interview by telephone via Pretoria.
As a result of this approach many journalists no longer seriously attempt to interact with the military.
Lekota announced the revising of the Defence Review and Defence White Paper in Parliament last week.
He also sought to assure MPs that South African troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo were safe. He denied claims that the South African contingent of the United Nations force lacked equipment and discipline.
But this was questioned by media reports that said that each of the four infantry companies deployed in the DRC had only four Casspir armoured personnel carriers -- of which only two were said to be serviceable at any given time -- instead of 12.
A lack of spare parts is blamed.
As a result, a section detailed to escort a truck near Goma last weekend had to ride on a Samil 20 troop carrier -- a light, unstable, two-ton truck notorious for its high centre of gravity.
Troops on the back are also completely exposed to hostile fire and landmine blasts.
The trucks were ambushed and one private was wounded.
He and another rifleman were subsequently killed when the truck overturned while attempting to speed away from the scene.
However, the DoD faces some constraints in engaging the media.
The SANDF is increasingly a foreign policy instrument. A White Paper on peacekeeping says the SANDF is not responsible for justifying its external activities.
It is the Department of Foreign Affairs' function to explain South Africa's choice of peace missions and to ensure popular buy-in.
"My opinion is they've not done this for either the DRC or Burundi and there's no sign they plan a concerted information campaign for Sudan," Institute for Security Studies defence analyst Len Le Roux said.
But where incidents like the one at Goma occur, the SANDF should answer all questions promptly and as accurately as possible.
It cannot be seen to hide behind another department or refer queries to a far-away UN bureaucracy while anxious families and friends wait for news.
Le Roux said he believed the media in general face challenges reporting defence objectively and with full understanding.
The media was sometimes inclined to accentuate the negative and not the positive.
Reporters also frequently -- out of ignorance -- confused basic definitions and concepts and got facts wrong, by, for example writing about army helicopters, when they were, in fact, operated by the SA Air Force.
"There is a responsibility on the media to understand defence and know the difference between brigades and battalions and the army and air force," Le Roux said.
But one could only have an educated media if the military took an interest in explaining itself.
This is well understood abroad.
In 2002 a US officer wrote in the official periodical Armor (SUBS: CORRECT): "The media inform the very people who pay our salaries, own our equipment and help form the opinions of the parents whose sons and daughters they entrust to us. For a significant portion of this nation, the media is their only link to the military."
Another officer, in the Marine Corps Gazette, called the media a conduit to the people -- "the device by which we explain who we are and what we do."
A US military manual in 2000 explained this further, saying it was incumbent on every soldier, sailor or airman to provide the media the access, candour, and insights necessary for an honest portrayal.
"That a reporter is ignorant of what you do, or the rules under which you operate, makes him or her no less interested. And, in any event, that reporter is going to convey something to the public," the US Marine Corps' manual added.
SA National Editors Forum deputy chairman and Rhodes journalism professor Guy Berger said defence was a critical sector of national life that merited more media coverage than it was receiving.
Asked whether journalists were frustrated in their reporting by the military, Berger said "I haven't heard any complaints from editors, but that could be because of the minimal coverage."
Berger said the media has lost some of its expertise on military matters and in the cut-backs in most newsrooms in the last ten years, defence was a "beat" that had suffered.
Hardly any newspapers other than the Afrikaans dailies Beeld and Die Burger still have dedicated defence correspondents.
Several other institutions, including Lekota's office were approached for comment but either failed to respond or could not do so by the time of publication.