Committee Report: deliberations

Meeting report

Media leak
Mr N Singh (IFP) raised a motion for the Committee to discuss the leaking the draft Committee Report (that is, the working document) and, perhaps, to find who leaked it.

Responding to the motion, the Chairperson said that the draft report had to be circulated to all members by 13 January. It was circulated among Members for them to discuss certain issues in their caucus briefing so that Members could apply their minds. Subsequent to that circulation or caucus briefing, the draft report was said to be leaked to media. All media highlighted that the draft/working document was leaked. The media should know that the report was given to Members to go and consult and that the draft report was still a working document. The notion of leaking document could not be said to be correct. From day one, the Committee had insisted on being consistent in its work subject to transparency. Parliament had to follow the principle of transparency and the issue of the leaked document could not exist and should not arise. The media should assist Members in reporting responsibly. The process of the Committee was made clear on 13 January and media should not try to make the life of Committee difficult. Media should know that the main objective of the Committee is to stop in the decline of the SABC and a step further is to assist the incumbent leadership to ensure that the interests of South Africans take precedence. The Committee’s duty is not about declaring the innocence or guilty of individuals under investigation. It is all about the people of South Africa and stopping the decline of the SABC. Members’ political orientation should not be raised above the interest of the country. Members should work towards producing a good product even though there would be criticism.

Mr Singh welcomed the Chairperson’ remarks and noted that it was unfortunate that the report was said to be leaked. It was not an official document; rather it was still a working document and its content would be changed considerably. Members had to apply their minds to the content of the draft report for its improvement in light of members’ suggestions, inputs and comments. Media should note that the role of the Committee was to ensure the sustainability of the SABC and its financial status through learning from the mistakes of the past. The focus should be on the institution of the SABC and not individuals and evaluation should not touch the findings of the Public Protector and Auditor General of South Africa or recommendations of Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA). Whoever came in to brief the Committee, be it the SABC Board, ICASA and the Minister ought to respect the ruling of the court.

Mr S Swart (ACDP) commented that the key aspect that needed to be focussed on was that the published document was a working document. He said that when he was approached by media, he could not engage on the content of the report simply because it was a working document. The Committee  would be deliberating on the content and, in the process, it would adhere to the principle of transparency. Fairness should be emphasised in deliberating on that working document. The process should be clear.

Ms F Loliwe (ANC) seconded the Chairperson’s remarks and added that when the report was shared with her, she understood that the report should strictly be shared with caucus. Whoever understood that the caucus included the media should come forward and affirm that.

Mr N Khubisa (NFP) agreed with the Chairperson’s remarks and commented that the mandate of the Committee was to ensure that SABC did correct things. The inquiry into the SABC should, as per consensus at the initial meeting, be conducted in a transparent manner. The report was taken to caucus but they did not exhaust it. The media also approached them but they could not speak because they regarded the report as a working document. It ought to be understood in that context and in the context that the time would come when the document would be finalised so that the public could be informed of the Committee’s findings. The Committee was aware that the public was interested in its work and should share with it at the end of the day.

Mr P Chauke (ANC) remarked that from the very beginning it was made clear that the process would be open and transparent. Even though the working document was public, this could not have impact on the work of the Committee. There was nothing like leaking of the document and he could not agree with a contention holding that the document was leaked.

The Chairperson stated that Members recalled that on Friday 13 January they discussed the way forward and there was a request from Mr Kwankwa to make a presentation to the Committee. 

Mr Kwankwa's presentation
Mr N Kwankwa (UDM) stated that giving an opportunity to present was a sign that the democracy was still alive. As the UDM, he made a request for Mr Hlaudi Motsoeneng to be given an opportunity to state his case in that the principle of justice would be followed. It would be in the interest of fairness and natural justice to give Mr Motsoeneng an opportunity to respond to claims made against him by many witnesses. The Committee should consider giving him a chance as it did in respect of Dr Ben Ngubane and Ms Ellen Tshabalala – the last two witnesses to give testimony last Friday. Dr Ngubane and Ms Tshabalala were invited to the inquiry to give them a chance to answer damning allegations made against them. Mr Motsoeneng should similarly be given the same chance as he had been implicated in much of the testimony‚ and the Committee  should call him to avoid being seen as biased.

Referring to paragraph 3.1.1 of the draft report, Mr Kwankwa noted that the report stated that “testimony suggested that Mr Motsoeneng was at the centre of the divisions within all boards between 2009 and 2016". Members should recall that all witnesses implicated senior officials of the SABC for interferences through intimidation and he asked why Mr Motsoeneng could not be given a chance to clear his name. The Committee would not help the Parliament to adjudicate on the matter if it adopted a biased approach to hearing testimonies. This view was given credence with the facts appearing on para 2.4.11 of the draft report where it was stated that Ngubane and Tshabalala were invited to give evidence related to their tenures following allegations levelled against them in the course of hearing.

Mr Kwankwa sought clarity on what was stopping the Committee from inviting Mr Motsoeneng to give evidence related to his tenure. There was the allegation that even if he was no longer part of the SABC, he continued to run SABC. If the Committee did fail to call Mr Motsoeneng, it would live with the stigma of bias.

Discussion
Mr J Mahlangu (ANC) remarked that he also, at certain stage, shared the same view with Mr Kwankwa that more people could be invited to brief the Committee such as the Financial Management Officer and the Human Resource Manager. When the Committee started the inquiry process, the Committee meetings were open for everyone to participate. Mr Kwankwa was not there. As members are aware that no one, at any point, was excluded. The SABC sent a delegation of executives to the Committee and Mr Motsoeneng had been part of that group. Accordingly, the motion raised by Mr Kwankwa could not be dealt in that forum given that the Chairperson had given the opportunity to that delegation to put questions to the presenters, but they never had. The hearing was about SABC Board and not individuals. It ought to be emphasised that the meeting did neither exclude Mr Motsoeneng nor any other member of the SABC Board. It was the ruling of the Court that removed Mr Motsoeneng from the SABC Board. In essence, Mr Motsoeneng was an individual on the street. The request made by Mr Kwankwa was opportunistic.

Mr Swart said that unanimous decision on the question of Mr Motsoeneng was taken by the Committee. He understood that many questions should be asked why such a decision was taken. In applying the fairness rule, he noted that Mr Motsoeneng could also have made written submissions if he so wished‚ in the same way that former Communications Minister Yunus Carrim had. This could have been in line with fairness and justice and therefore there was no prejudice against Mr Motsoeneng. The Committee had set out the timeframe of hearing evidence and testimonies and the last persons to be heard were Dr Ngubane and Ms Tshabalala. The decision of the Committee should be maintained and sustained.

Mr Khubisa recalled that in the initial meetings of the Committee, members were asked to define those individuals and civil society organisations that could come to present to the Committee. A number of individual names were mentioned. It was agreed as a Committee that those who wanted to submit their testimonies in writing could do so. He believed that the process adopted by the Committee did not leave anyone outside. Mr Motsoeneng had the same opportunity of submitting in writing his testimony. The Committee was open to everyone to submit to it their inputs either in writing or orally. The Committee should carry on with its work in accordance with its timeframes. There were some submissions that were expected to be submitted to the Committee.

Dr M Khosa agreed with her colleagues that a decision to move on was taken by the Committee unanimously. When the decision was taken, Mr Kwankwa was represented by Mr Singh and Mr Khubisa, who were representing the smaller political parties. Although Mr Kwankwa submitted his proposal, his proposal could not and would not alter the decision of the Committee. Mr Motsoeneng was given an opportunity as others in a collective way, but he did not seize such opportunity. She appealed to her colleague to refrain from focusing on this Motsoeneng matter which was turning the Committee into a kind of demagogue or as if the Committee’s process was not the right way of doing its business. The Committee should not be turned into political terrain. Mr Kwankwa should accept the decision of the Committee. What made the case of Mr Motsoeneng worse was that the court had ruled on it. In that respect, the Committee was seized with restoring the integrity of the SABC as an institution.

Mr L Mokoena (EFF) remarked that the investigation was all about the fitness of the SABC Board. He noted that Dr Ngubane and Ms Tshabalala were given an opportunity to respond because they were running the SABC Board, but the purpose of inquiry was not to clear their names or those names that were dragged through the mud. The name Mr Motsoeneng was mentioned in an inquiry when the Board was asked why it allowed him to be appointed. This was no longer an issue because the court pronounced that he was supposed not to be appointed in the first place. He did not appear before the Committee to clear his name. It was not the Committee 's job to clear anyone’s name and give them a platform. If we are expected to clear everyone's name then we should also have to call the Guptas‚ Brian Molefe, Jimi Matthews and others in the name of fairness. If the Committee had to follow the principle of fairness and thus call everyone whose name was implicated, he feared that the hearing process could take, at minimum, 15 years. He reminded the UDM that when the court pronounced on someone’s fitness to hold office, such person could not be given an opportunity to come and justify him or herself in the Parliament. He was not expected to see the UDM behaving as it was behaving in relation to the court ruling. The Parliament could not consider the matter on which the court had decided on.

Mr M Waters (DA) said that the Committee should bear in mind that it was working with deadlines and therefore hard decisions ought to be taken even though it had to apply the principle of fairness. People had enough time to submit their evidence to the Committee on allegations levelled against them. For example, there was a person who wrote to the Committee about what Dr Ngubane said in his testimony. If following the principle of fairness, the Committee would allow other people to come and participate; there would be no fewer than a 100 people. The decision was taken and should be accepted regardless of the fact that it might have an effect on others.

Ms Van Damme remarked that Motsoeneng's position had been made very clear by the courts. On top of this, he had not made use of the opportunities available to him to come and cross examine witnesses. The first point was that the SABC Board came in with a big delegation to attend the Committee’s meeting‚ and walked out and called a press conference insulting this Committee  and calling it a kangaroo court. Despite all of that, the Committee invite the SABC Board to come and cross-examine witnesses. The Chairperson gave an opportunity to members of the SABC Board to ask questions but they did not. And they were saying that they want to come. That cannot happen. The second point was that Mr Motsoeneng was investigated thoroughly, first by the Public Protector and second by the Western High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal. The third point was the pressure from the public shouting that Mr Motsoeneng ought to appear before the Committee. The Committee was not there to entertain people but to work and fix the SABC. It had its mandate. Should Mr Motsoeneng not be happy with the testimonies or working document, he should have written to the Committee. People who objected to recognising the work of the Committee could not be allowed to come and delay its work.

Ms Loliwe noted that the issue raised by Mr Kwankwa was not raised in the right platform. The decision of who should and who should not come was taken in the Committee meeting. Out of the blue, Mr Kwankwa chose to raise this matter and this was an illustration of his joining the Committee later. He was even using the working document to back up his argument. He should note that they were working as a Committee. Views could not be advanced on the token of a political party and Mr Kwankwa should refrain from stating that he was submitting the UDM’s position or view. Members were working as one entity to ensure that the SABC’s integrity and sustainability was restored.

Speaking as a person coordinating small parties, Mr Singh welcomed the contribution of Mr Kwankwa in the Committee and noted that he represented a small party which could not deploy a full time member in each and every committee or at every committee meeting. His time was very limited and therefore he was appointed as an alternate member of the Committee. He should however note that the Committee was not there to discipline anyone but to see how the SABC’s integrity could be restored. Drawing on the Report of the Public Protector which was binding in terms of the Constitution and the court ruling, the following were findings on Mr Motsoeneng: His appointment as Chief Operating Officer was irregular; the SABC failed to take a disciplinary action in that regard; Mr Motsoeneng had committed a fraud; and Mr Motsoeneng purged senior employees leading to a loss of millions of rand through settlement of labour disputes. The SABC incurred unnecessary irregular and fruitless expenditure. Some employees’ salaries were unnecessarily increased, leading to a loss of R20 million. This gave rise to improper management administration. The SABC Board had a duty to ensure that these expenditures were recovered and that human resources were retained in a fair way. All these allegations were reflected in the Public Protector and Auditor General’s reports. It was clear that there was no vendetta against Mr Motsoeneng. When the SABC Board was given an opportunity to explain that it did what it could have done, Mr Motsoeneng walked out along with his people. The question was why he should be given special treatment. If the principle of justice and fairness applied, he could be given an opportunity to respond in writing as others did. In Mr Singh's party caucus, it resolved that Mr Motsoeneng should not be given a platform to brief the Committee.

Ms J Kilian (ANC) said that the Committee should not adjudicate on Mr Motsoeneng or his future. The court had declared its position. When the court ruled on his matter, he was a COO irrespective of its irregular appointment. Since then he was no longer. At that stage, he was a Group Executive of Corporate Affairs and he had to undergo thorough disciplinary processes. The Committee should refrain from backing any declaration about his future. The Committee would look into the SABC’s governance and its financial performance. When the Committee presents its findings to Parliament, the former and new SABC Board would have had their own say. This included the Portfolio Committee on Communications. The Committee would – through its report – submit all allegations, findings, observations and recommendations. She reiterated that Mr Motsoeneng had been given an opportunity which he would not use. If he felt that the Committee was an unfair to him or excluded him, he could approach the court.

Mr Chauke remarked that the UDM should learn to work with other political parties. The Motsoeneng issue should be resolved as a Committee as united it was.

The Chairperson remarked that anyone who was affected ought to be given opportunity to respond. The process should be fair. Everybody would be given an opportunity to respond. He reminded Members that the so called leaked report was a document in drafting process.

Mr Kwankwa responded that he was attending the meeting as a Member of Parliament. As such, he could make a proposal. Members had to consider his proposal for either supporting or rejecting it. He felt that Mr Motsoeneng could be invited to state his case to ensure procedural fairness. People should not perceive the Committee’s process as biased and unfair.

The Chairperson responded that the decision not to re-invite Mr Motsoeneng was supported by the majority of members. The decision was therefore the resolution that was taken by members in the previous meeting. No additional oral submissions would be accommodated regardless of whether certain people were affected.

Deliberations on working document of Committee Report
The Chairperson stated that Members should provide their observations and recommendations especially on the points on which they disagree. The process was not about asking questions but to identify gaps and providing the manner in which these gaps could be closed. He asked for suggestions on how deliberations could be conducted.

Mr Waters suggested that Members should go through the document clause by clause, chapter by chapter.

Mr Singh sought clarity on when Members would deal with all written submissions.

The Chairperson responded that a time would be allocated for that purpose. That was discussed in a previous meeting. A time for consideration of submissions would be allocated prior to 15 February 2017 to consider them as the deadline for submissions was 9 February 2017.

Mr Mahlangu commented that Members not deal with grammatical errors but focus on substantive matters.

Ms Loliwe suggested that on 24 January 2017, the Committee should consider submissions.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee would go through the report clause by clause, chapter by chapter, and most of the content of the draft report was subject to change. Grammatical errors should not be addressed.

Referring to the title of the working document, Ms Kilian suggested that there should be insertion “as per resolution of National Assembly”.

Members agreed.

Part A
2. Background

2.2 Membership
Para 2.2.1
Mr Kwankwa suggested that the paragraph should be revised to avoid the phrase “from other parties (2 members)” and thus specify those two members. They were from NFP and IFP.

Adv Nthuthuzelo Vanara, Parliamentary Legal Advisor objected. He noted that the content was a true reflection of a resolution of the National Assembly.

2.3 Process
Para 2.3.1
Dr Khoza suggested that the revision of paragraph to state that the process adopted was an open process of inquiry consistent with the resolution of National Assembly.

Ms Kilian seconded her. The process was indeed in line with the resolution of the National Assembly and Members of the Committee were fulfilling obligations flowing from such resolution.

Para 2 3 2
Mr Khubisa sought clarity on the meaning of an inquisitorial approach.

Mr Mahlangu sought clarity on the meaning of process under para 2.3.1 and an inquisitorial approach under para 2.3.2.

The Chairperson cautioned that Members should not seek clarity as he did not have answers. Rather members should identify a problem in a paragraph and then propose how such problem should be addressed.

Mr Swart suggested that the processes should be explained fully.

Mr Khubisa agreed. Processes ought to be specific to avoid a number of issues that might rise in their interpretations.

Mr Mahlangu agreed. He suggested that there should be an addendum document explaining fully certain terminologies.

Dr Khoza agreed. There ought to be a section outlining the methodology of inquiry.

Mr Kwankwa seconded her.

Mr Singh agreed and remarked that the submissions were one of the methods.

Mr Chauke agreed and stated that participation ought to be explained fully. He noted that there were submissions made by individuals and those submitted by civil society organisations.

Dr Khosa, referring to participation, noted that the addendum should explain who participated.

Mr Kwankwa suggested that a distinction ought to be made between the approach or methodology and the process. The report ought to show clearly these two methods.

Para 2 3 3
Ms Kilian suggested a revision of the paragraph as it was not reading clearly.

Ms Van Damme suggested that names of people and civil society organisations (i.e. witnesses) should be indicated.

The Chairperson felt that an indication of names was not a good approach as there were plenty of people who came forward.

Mr Swart supported the citation of names.

Dr Khosa remarked that the drafters of the report should avoid possible ambiguity by providing names. Precision ought to be maintained.

2.4 Witnesses
Para 2 4 1
Mr Singh stated that there were two hearing sessions which took place on 7 December 2016 and 13 January 2017. There were no hearings that took place from 7 December 2016 to 13 January 2016.

Mr Chauke suggested that names of state institutions should be indicated.

Para 2 4 2
Mr Kilian commented that the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) come in to brief the Committee on matters that were raised by civil society organisations.

Para 2 4 3
Ms Van Damme suggested a revision of the paragraph, noting that the reasons members of the SABC Board declined to participate ought to be cited.

Mr Singh said that there should be a new paragraph stating reasons for declining to participate.

The Chairperson stated that it should be made clear that some declined whereas others were not available.

Mr Mokoena stated that reasons of failing to participate ought to be categorised as follows: Names of those who did participate and those who did not and their reasons.

Para 2 4 4
Mr Swart sought clarity on whether it could be stated that the Committee was unhappy that people were invited to participate but declined.

Ms Kilian said that reasons for declining ought to be mentioned.

Mr Kwankwa sought clarity on why the paragraph did not indicate that Mr Vuyani Green could be not accommodated after showing his willingness to participate.

Para 2 4 5
Mr Singh felt that the paragraph should be revised to read better.

Ms Van Damme said that the Committee was not considering grammar.

Ms Kilian noted that it should be indicated in the paragraph that Mr Jimi Matthews was an Acting GCEO.

Mr Mokoena suggested that a paragraph listing submissions ought to be inserted.

Mr Khubisa said that it should be made clear whether a person was serving SABC or not.

Mr Chauke said that it ought to be clear whether a submission was oral or in writing.

Para 2 4 7
Ms Kilian said Maguvhe was a professor and not mister and the title of professor ought to be maintained.

Ms Van Damme stated that Prof Maguvhe’s initial attitude towards the Committee ought to be described and inserted in the report.

Mr Chauke said that the paragraph ought to indicate that Prof Maguvhe briefed the Committee in his capacity as the Chairperson.

Mr Mokoena reminded Members that Prof Maguvhe did resign and the rationale behind resignation ought to be stated clearly.

The Chairperson stated that Prof Maguvhe was the Chairperson of the Board as well as shareholder. His role as the Chairperson and the shareholder ought to reflect in the report.

Para 2 4 8
Ms Kilian suggested that the paragraph ought to be revised to reflect that the Minister of Communications, Ms F Muthambi, responded to certain allegations levelled against her.

Mr Swart stated that his role as shareholder and shareholder representative ought to be differentiated and explained.

Para 2 4 9
Mr Swart noted that all those who made submissions were not cited.

Mr Chauke noted that there was a need to differentiate submissions under oath from other submissions that were not under oath.

2 4 10
Mr Mokoena said that there should be distinction between what the Commissioner heard and what was written in the submission.

2 4 11
Ms Kilian noted that it ought to be indicated clearly that allegations were made against the previous governing SABC Board.

Mr Mokoena added that failures of the previous board were affecting the current board.

2.5 Documentation
Para 2 5 2
Ms Kilian suggested the revision of the paragraph.

Para 2 5 3
Ms Van Damme, referring to commercially sensitive information, noted that the paragraph should be revised to be more specific.

Para 2 5 4
Mr Swart suggested that the paragraph should be specific and avoid use of words such as “additional”, “several” and “interested parties”. The full list of submissions should be prepared and witnesses and interested parties should be named.

Mr Khubisa agreed. He noted that there should be documents annexed to the report even though this approach would make the report voluminous.

Mr Waters felt that only names should be mentioned and attached.

The Chairperson disagreed with Mr Khubisa. The report should not be voluminous. Documents suggested for annexure should be prepared and be made available only on request.

Part B: Summary of Evidence/Testimony

3. Governance and Compliance

3.1 Board Fiduciary Duties
Para 3 1 1
Ms Van Damme stated that legislation from which the Board’s fiduciary duties come, ought to be cited. The paragraph ought to make reference to the duties and responsibilities of the Board set out under legislation.

Dr Khosa agreed. She noted that Members’ observations on the matter should be included in the report. The paragraph should start by stating what testimony confirmed and revealed. The paragraph should be reviewed because it did not capture the essence of inquiry and observation of the Committee.

Mr Khubisa noted that the legislation violated must be clearly stated. The phrase “an open secret” did not sit well with the inquiry and thus the paragraph should be revised.

Para 3 1 2
Ms Loliwe said the same principles that applied to para 3 1 1 should also apply to this paragraph.

Mr Waters noted that the term “own agenda” should be revised to read political agenda.

Mr Swart stated that it should rather be personal and political agenda in lieu of own agenda and that the outcome should be in the interest of the public.

Mr Mokoena noted that a 3 1 3 paragraph should be added talking about the power of the Minister to hire and fire employees. There was a conflict between the Company Act and Broadcasting Act which brought confusion about who has the power to hire and fire workers.

Mr Swart stated that the report ought to give a full account of legal conflict arising from the Companies Act and Broadcasting Act and which legislation superseded the other.

The Chairperson sought clarity on whether the suggested paragraphs should be under Testimony section.

Ms Van Damme said that the Broadcasting Act did override the Companies Act.

Mr Mokoena stated that there ought to be a section on conflict of laws and how such conflict ought to be reconciled.

Ms Loliwe said that Members should not have a doubt about that. They should avoid giving an impression to the public that they did not know what the law was or meant.

4 Articles of Association and Memorandum of Incorporation
 Dr Khoza stated that the Articles of Association item should be under the Observation section.

Mr Khubisa and Mr Waters agreed.

5 Separation of powers

5.1 Political interference
Para 5 1 1
Mr Mokoena said that separation of powers ought to be clarified with reference to certain legislation.

Mr Kwankwa agreed. He said that the legislation implicated should be clarified.

Ms Loliwe said that there was no problem with the paragraph and it should remain as it was.

The Chairperson said that the heading should be revised to read “Implication of separation of powers”.

Ms Van Damme said that there was a need to clarify how the Minister was expected to conduct herself in relation to Parliament. The clarification should be done giving regard to her constitutional and legislative mandate. She said that she had a problem with the wording of the paragraph.

Ms Kilian suggested that the paragraph should be reworded to include reference to the Broadcasting Act, in particular, what it said on matter.

The Chairperson said that he was allocating the task of rewording the paragraph to Ms Van Damme.

Para 5 1 2
Mr Khubisa said that the Minister’s interference in the Board’s business ought to be specified.

Para 5 1 3
Ms Kilian suggested that the paragraph should be revised and that she was volunteering to do so.

Para 5 1 4
Mr Mokoena said that the paragraph should made reference to the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and the power of hiring and firing.

Ms Kilian said that the paragraph talked about the appointment of the Board Chairperson and should also talk about the appointment of the Board Deputy Chairperson.

Dr Khoza said the Broadcasting Amendment Bill negatively affected SABC governance. The Committee needed to make recommendations on the Bill, otherwise the Committee would be as guilty as the Portfolio Committee on Communications of giving the Minister unchecked powers.

Mr Mokoena agreed. He commented that the Committee  had to recommend in a cogent way what ought to happen with the Bill.

Ms Van Damme agreed. She said concern about the Bill was something the Committee  should include in its observations and recommendations.

6 Financial management
Mr Singh said that page 10 to 16 were drawn from the Auditor General South Africa report. The report needed to be consulted for confirmation of data and could not be changed without consultation of that report.

Ms Kilian agreed. She said that there should be three reports talking about the SABC’s financial performance. These three years were 2013/2014, 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 financial years. These three of Auditor General reports had to be consulted to substantiate Members’ concerns.

Mr Chauke agreed. He said that the Chairperson should establish a team to look at the SABC’s financial status and management and at the sustainability of the SABC. Did SABC have capacity to deal with its financial crisis?

Mr Swart suggested that there were more evidence that could be drawn from the Auditor-General report to support Members’ concerns. The SABC had to be given a chance to respond to the Auditor-General reports.

The Chairperson said Mr Swart and others should reconsider the paragraphs under Financial Management.

7 Supply Chain Management-related matters
Para 7 1
Mr Mokoena said that the paragraph should be revised to state clearly what the contraventions were.

Mr Chauke agreed.

Mr Swart tried to state how the introduction of the paragraph should be.

Ms van Damme said that the names of those who provided testimonies should reflect in the paragraph.

Mr Khubisa said that certain examples of testimonies should be cited to strengthen the arguments or concerns.

Mr Waters said that names of creditors were also important and should be mentioned.

8 Human Resource-related matters
8.1 Executive Appointments
Para 8 1 1
Ms Van Damme said that the report should be specific insofar as evidence was concerned: Who presented evidence? Which evidence? The same principle should apply to paragraph 8 1 2 and 8 1 4.

Mr Mokoena agreed.

8.2 Suspensions and Dismissals
Para 8 2 1
Ms Kilian said that the paragraph should refer to blanket dismissal.

Mr Waters agreed and spoke about typical examples illustrating the situation of irregular termination of employment.

8.3 Performance management system
Para 8 3 1
Mr Khubisa suggested a revision of the paragraph and sought clarity on whether the SABC did not have a performance management system.

9. Editorial Independence

9.1 Editorial Policies
Para 9 1 3
Ms Kilian said that emotional and descriptive words like chilling should not be used in the report.

9.2 Regulatory compliance
Para 9 2 1
Mr Singh said that there were important elements that were left out in the paragraph and these elements were raised by ICASA. Those elements should be incorporated in the paragraph.

Ms Kilian suggested that there should be a new paragraph talking about the "recommendations of CCC as per section 17E(2)(b)(c)”.

10. “Suspicious deals”

10.1 MultiChoice
 Para 10 1 1
Mr Mokoena sought clarity on whether a contract between the SABC and MultiChoice was produced to the Committee.

Mr Khubisa said that it was of paramount importance to know what the deal between the SABC and MultiChoice was all about.

The Chairperson agreed. In drafting the report, they ought to be careful in providing details of the deal between the SABC and the MultiChoice.

Ms Kilian said that the SABC’s contract with MultiChoice was not produced to the Committee on the basis of privilege and confidentiality clauses. She suggested that there should be a forensic investigation of the content of such contract for the Committee  to provide its observations and recommendations.

The Chairperson echoed Ms Kilian’s statement noting that Members could not provide their observations and recommendations because there were no facts at their disposal.

Mr Mokoena said that it had been difficult to say anything about the controversy surrounding the deal/contract because the contract was not availed to the Committee. The Committee had no evidence.

Mr Swart said that there were many issues and allegations pertaining to the contract which were raised in the testimonies; however, due to the absence of the contract, there were no clear answers to them.

Para 10 1 2
Ms Kilian said that the paragraph should be revised to refer to appointed board and not interim board.

Para 10 1 3
Mr Swart stated that he was not okay with the phrase “board members raised concerns” and suggested that a board member’s name should be mentioned as well as his or her concern. This was important to avoid speculation.

Ms Loliwe felt that the paragraph was correct hence it was board members who raised concerns.

Para 10 1 5
Mr Swart said that the paragraph should be revised to begin as follows: According to witnesses’ testimonies. This phrase should substitute “per testimony”.

Para 10 1 7
Ms Kilian said that the paragraph should be revised to state clearly that the public were excluded from accessing both SABC Encore and SABC News.

Mr Mokoena said that it should be borne in mind that the report should be based on the testimonies and evidence and not on assumptions and speculation.

Mr Singh said that the Dlamini testimony should be used as reference.

Ms Van Damme said that there were other testimonies that could be referenced to support their concern.

The Chairperson said that the paragraph should also refer to the testimonies of Dr Ngubane and Mr Dlamini. These were some evidence and factual testimonies.

10.3 Digital Terrestrial Television
 Para 10 3 1
Mr Mokoena, referring to the inquiry into the deal between the SABC and MultiChoice, said that the relationship between these two entities remained unclear.

Para 10 3 3
Mr Swart suggested the revision of the paragraph and said the verb “to be insinuated” should not be used. It should be replaced by the verb “to appear”.

11. Public Protector Report No 23 of 2013/14: When Governance and Ethics Fail

11.1 Response to the report
Para 11 1 1
Mr Singh said "Committee" should be replaced by the "former Board" in the paragraph.

Ms Kilian agreed.

Mr Waters said that the paragraph should also indicate that there different interpretations of recommendations made by the Public Protector.

Para 11 1 2
Ms Van Damme said that the paragraph should be revised to start as follows: As it appears from the minutes. This should substitute “Per testimony from former Board members".

Para 11 1 3
Ms Kilian suggested a revision of paragraph.

Para 11 1 5
The Chairperson said that the paragraph should be revised to say that the Board Chairperson appointed a law firm to draft a legal opinion.

Mr Swart agreed.

11.2 Disciplinary action against the then acting Chief Operating Officer
Para 11 2 1
Mr Khubisa said that the SABC requested the evidence file which was compiled by the Public Protector to support its disciplinary proceedings. The file was never collected or referred to during the proceedings. Who should have collected the file? Who did not refer to it? These facts were needed to be incorporated in the paragraph.

12 Evaluation of Testimony
Mr Singh said that there were various testimonies which ought to be grouped in categories. Some testimonies indicated that there was political interference whereas others did not. Some testimonies were credible whereas others were misleading. For misleading testimonies, the Committee should deliberate on them to determine those individuals with intent to mislead the Committee.

The Chairperson agreed. He suggested that a new section entitled “Contradictory evidence” or “Conflicting evidence” should be incorporated in the working document.

Members said that the section should be entitled “Contradictory evidence” and should state, among other things, the following: Dr Ngubane’s testimony, Ms Tshabalala’s testimony, appointment of Duda owing to her relationship with the former Minister Pule, issue of selling, appointment of the Chief Operation Officer, provision of different version of minutes to the Committee, and the question of visiting India.

Dr Khoza said that this section should zoom into the testimonies of Mr Molefe and Dr Ngubane with a particular focus on discrepancies and anomalies.

Mr Mokoena said that there was contradictory evidence relating to who initiated the visiting if India. Was it Mr Molefe or Dr Ngubane?

Mr Mahlangu said that there were different testimonies on Prof Maguvhe.

Para 12 1
Mr Swart said that the Committee was not a court to determine guilt and innocence; rather, it should reach its observations based on the testimonies tendered.

Para 12 2
Mr Mokoena said that para 12 1 to 12 4 should be revised in line with the discussion under the new section to be inserted, that is, contradictory evidence.

The Chairperson noted that the meeting would resume the following day at 9h00 when they would commence deliberating on Observations and Recommendations. He urged Members to cogitate  about the contradictions and, where possible, make presentations on those possible contradictory testimonies and evidence.

The meeting was adjourned.