SABC Interim Board: progress report

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson advised the meeting that applications for positions on the SABC Board had closed on 30 June 2017. As journalists had been interested to know about the process, he informed the meeting that 362 applications had been received and the Committee support team was analysing applications to determine who met the criteria and what qualifications they had. He did not know whether any members of the Interim Board had applied for positions, as he did not know who had applied for the Board and would know only when he received the list from his support team. The short-listing process would begin in the following week. Each Committee Member would receive a file with full details of all applicants before the short-listing process began. He could report that the Committee was very satisfied with the work of the Interim SABC Board.

The Chairperson regretted that Members of the Committee had been unavailable for communications training, as they had been busy with constituency work and recommended that all Members participate in the training during the next recess, as training in communication matters was very important.

Ms P van Damme (DA) commented that 362 was the highest number of applications received for Board members in recent years, which was a testament to the Interim Board and the fact that the SABC Board was no longer considered a poisoned chalice. She asked for more detail as to how the short-listing process was to be conducted.

The Chairperson agreed that the number of applicants was impressive, and said that everything would be given to Members as they would all be involved in the selection process and not just a select few, as had been the case in the past. The number of applications was heartening, especially as they had had only one application for the Director General (DG) position at the Department of Communications when that had been advertised.

Mr S Swart (ACDP) asked whether the selection process would be open and transparent and whether members of the public would be permitted to give input and comment on the nominees. The Chairperson confirmed that the process would be open and transparent, but the question of public input would be discussed at the Committee meeting the following week

 

Presentation: Interim SABC Board

The Chairperson of the Interim SABC Board, Ms Khanyisile Kweyane, presented a progress report on the implementation of the recommendations of the final ad hoc committee. The report had been adopted by the National Assembly in March 2017. The main finding had been that the SABC Board had failed to carry out its duties in terms of the SABC Act. There had been 33 recommendations in the final report, of which the Interim Board was responsible for 24, and Parliament for nine. The Chairperson of the Interim Board presented a response to each of the 24 recommendations.

R2.1 billion of the R5.1 billion originally flagged as irregular expenditure had been found to be in relation to tax clearance certificates for sport and television, and the Board had recommended to Treasury that the amount of R2.1 billion be condoned. This meant that only R3 billion had been irregular expenditure. The Interim Board had terminated the contract with LornaVision, the TV licensing company, and ANN7 (the New Age). Other contracts, including the contract with MultiChoice, were under review or investigation. The Interim Board was dealing with the appointment of staff, the signing of performance agreements and the vetting of all staff.

All SABC policies, including the editorial policies, would be approved by March 2018. The implementation of the 90% local content policy had cost television R183 million and radio R29 million in loss of advertising revenue. There was also a cost of R72 million for the replacement by local content and the cancellation of foreign programmes. The Board had withdrawn the court appeal against the Public Protector’s report and had commenced legal action to recover monies from Mr Motsoeneng and Mr Aguma. A disciplinary hearing had been held for Mr Motsoeneng, who had been found guilty of irregular behaviour and dismissed before the hearing relating to the Public Prosecutor’s report could take place. The Board would also claim back irregular payments made to Mr Motsoeneng and Mr Aguma. They had offered protection to those staff members who had felt intimidated, and action had been taken against anyone who did not support a free editorial process.

There had been a total collapse of financial management and the SABC was in dire financial straits, but matters were improving. An application had been made to National Treasury for a guarantee. A task team was also scrutinising all payments made on a daily basis. The Interim Board had revised the 2017/18 SABC corporate plan, and was reviewing all group executive appointments. The process to recruit the Group Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Operating officer (COO) was in the final stages as they awaited the Minister’s decision regarding the appointments. The SABC annual general meeting (AGM) was scheduled for 24 August 2017, and the Board would hand over to the Minister in September 2017.

Discussion

The Chairperson appreciated the clear and informative report that reflected good progress, and invited questions and points of clarity from the Committee Members.

Mr M Kalako (ANC) commended the Interim Board on progress achieved. He referred to the confusion around the Memorandum of Incorporation (MOI). The Board Chairperson had cited the May 2014 MOI, but he was not sure that that was the correct MOI. The previous Minister, Ms Faith Muthambi, had amended an MOI and had given herself powers to take certain decisions. That issue related to the appointment of the Group Secretary. He suggested that they go back to the minutes of the Committee, because he believed that the change had happened during the process of manipulating matters, and that the SABC and Ms Theresa Geldenhuys had been centrally involved. He suggested that some of the minutes had been concocted. That needed to be followed up.

He asked whether there was a working cooperation with the Special Investigation Unit (SIU), and whether the Board had received a report from the SIU, which sometimes gave a lot of leeway to people who had done wrong. He understood from the presentation that the internal audit unit had already looked at some of the issues which they could give to the SIU for follow-up. He agreed that some of the issues belonged to Parliament and the Speaker. Certain matters had been referred to the Speaker. The Committee should ask the Speaker for the legal opinion on various matters at the SABC.

The Interim Board was taking a good position by going to the provinces, as the damage had been done at the provincial offices. However, there were still issues at the provincial level -- for example, in Mpumalanga. Everything had to be cleaned up, from the Chairperson of the Board to the provincial level. The Committee had to do its part so that when the new Board was appointed, all issues raised in the ad hoc report would have been dealt with and they could start afresh.

The Chairperson supported the proposal to send a request to the Speaker for the legal report.

Mr Swart commended the Interim Board. On 9 May 2017 at a Justice Committee meeting, the SIU had been asked if Adv Mothiba would assist the Interim Board, and he had given an undertaking that he would do so. He agreed to seek an urgent proclamation giving the SIU permission to act in the matter. Mr Swart said that the Interim Board had referred a number of issues to the SIU, and suggested that the Committee might want to follow up on the issue of the proclamation. The challenge was that the proclamation had not been issued by the President, so the SIU could not do anything. The Minister of Justice had expedited the proclamation, but it had lain with the President for three months. The SIU could not act in the meantime, and it was something that Parliament might have to address.

The second issue was related to the environment of fear and intimidation at the SABC, which had been identified by the ad hoc committee. That environment, and the stress arising from it, had played a significant part in the death of Ms Venter, one of the “SABC 8” journalists. He wanted to know more about how the issue was being addressed. The ad hoc committee had taken the threats very seriously and had reported them to the police, but he was now aware that one of the journalists had sadly passed away as a result of the stress and intimidation. He asked whether the Committee could follow up with the police on whether anything had been done about the threat on the lives of journalists.

The financial issue of the SABC was a matter of great concern. The finances portrayed to Parliament had been false, and the cash flow crisis was now general knowledge. He asked about the size and conditions of the guarantee that the Interim Board had applied for from Treasury. He was pleased that the Board was taking action to bring back advertisers, as that would assist in the financial crisis. As there was an ongoing audit, he was worried about the Auditor General issuing concerns about the going concern basis of the SABC. He understood that liabilities did not exceed assets, but he was concerned about it on a going concern basis.

Mr M Ndlozi (EFF) supported Mr Swart’s concern that the President had not signed the proclamation, as he was delaying the work of Parliament. He was also delaying the restoration of stability in the SABC, as well as delaying justice. There was evidence of wrong contracts and people who ought to be pursued because the public broadcaster and its funds had been misused, but the SIU could not move because of the President. Mr Ndlozi wondered whether the President or his friends were implicated, as anyone who was not implicated would have signed it already. Parliament had to put pressure on the President and ask why he had not signed the proclamation in the three months that it had been on his desk.

In addition, Mr Ndlozi was not happy that the Interim Board was hesitating to press charges. It was taking too long. Mr Aguma had left the SABC because he knew he was guilty and that the disciplinary committee was going to expose him. It was necessary to pursue people who were corrupt if things were to be changed. That was the only way that the country was going to win the war against corruption, but the Board was hesitant. Why had they not instituted criminal charges? They were being slow, like the President.

He asked when the details of the Group CEO and the COO had been submitted to the Minister. He was wondering whether the Minister was cooperative, as she was a Minister of the President. The issue of the cooperation of the Minister was important. He was worried that the focus was on the Board and senior executives, but there was no sense of dealing with those people who had been involved in taking wrong decisions when signing contracts with ANN7, etc, and who were still in the SABC. It was not a matter of complicity, but it was about those who had been active taking wrong decisions. Even under the CEO, they were guilty of doing wrong.

The biggest problem had been the Acting Head of News. The EFF had been marginalised from the news in 2014. He asked about ‘Morning Live,’ and who had been involved with that contract. He worried that most of the conversation was around the senior executives, but there were those who had received promotion for supporting Hlaudi Motsoeneng. The Acting Head of News had made editorial decisions which had not restored the integrity of journalism. He wanted to know what plans the Interim Board had for a head of all news. There were also journalists who had been complicit and who had participated willingly in doing wrong things. He supported the request to the Speaker.

He asked about the process of appointing the CEO. Were the members of the Interim Board safe? Were they being intimidated by political parties that believed in deployment? Had they been called and asked for the names of proposed appointees? That was the problem that had brought them to that point. He was asking, because that was what had happened at other entities. He asked again whether they were safe and whether the process would be concluded soon, as it was essential to have permanent positions.

The Chairperson said that the issue of other departments in the SABC, where people who had connived with the previous executive, had to be addressed as the people were still there and they had a lot of money. The Board had to look at it, particularly the Sports Division. The Committee wanted the Interim Board to get their hands dirty in those areas.

Mr R Tseli (ANC) commended the Interim Board. He referred to the issue of contracts, and noted that the Board had referred only to senior management. However, he wanted to know about the rest of the employees at SABC. He noted that they were targeting 31 August to complete the work relating to contracts. He asked about the verdict in the latest court case. He wanted to be briefed on it. He liked the process of public hearings, especially as they were going to the provinces. He asked the Interim Board about their relationship with organised labour at the SABC.

He wanted to know about the unfunded mandates. It was a challenge that would still be there going forward, and he wanted to know how the Board intended responding to it. The 90/10 local content was an issue and a number of stakeholders had expressed dissatisfaction with that aspect of the review. He asked whether the Board had interacted with the stakeholders and tried to make them understand the approach that the Board was taking. The challenges were such that the Board had stated that its members were not going to claim their allowances until such time as the organisation was financially stabilised. What was the current situation regarding their allowances?

Ms Van Damme concurred with her colleagues who had recommended that the Committee request the Speaker to hand over the legal report on those who had lied to the ad hoc committee. She had heard that the Speaker had begun processing the report and had sent it to those implicated, which was not the role of the Speaker. A letter had to be sent to the Speaker explaining that it was not her role to process the report, but that of the Committee. The Chairperson reminded her that he had agreed that the Speaker be requested to send the report to the Committee.

She was also concerned about the President sitting on the proclamation which would allow the SIU to proceed with investigations on behalf of the SABC Interim Board. Mr Swart had informed the Committee that the Minister of Justice had expedited the proclamation, but that the President had not signed it. She requested that a letter be sent from the Committee or Parliament, asking the President when he would be approving the proclamation. She wanted to know whether the Interim Board had engaged with the Minister on the matter of the proclamation and, if so, what the Minister’s response had been.

She raised the issue of what had been called Mr Motsoeneng’s ‘enforcers’ at the SABC. The matter had been addressed by the ad hoc committee in a recommendation about dealing with all incidents of victimisation and intimidation at the SABC. She pointed out that the Interim Board Chairperson had not spoken about whether there had been an investigation into the threats that journalists had been receiving. One of the threatening calls made to the ‘SABC 8’ had been from the SABC headquarters. An internal investigation was urgently called for.

Ms Van Damme expressed her concern that the ball had been dropped by Parliament. She had twice asked that the Minister of Police be summonsed to report on the investigation into the threats and intimidation, and it was unacceptable that a journalist had to die while nothing was being done about it. The Committee had not ensured that the police investigated the matter. There had been no feedback from the SAPS to the ‘SABC 8.’ It was therefore the role of Parliament to get the Minister of Police there and to get an update on the investigation. The Interim Board was also obliged to conduct an internal investigation. Criminal charges had to be laid against those who had been threatening the journalists. She also referred to the report about the ‘enforcers’ that had been given to the police by the late Suna Venter, one of the ‘SABC 8’ journalists. She was willing to provide the Interim Board with the report and the list of the names of the people who had been identified as ‘enforcers,’ and had been involved in the reign of terror. Criminal charges had to be laid against them.

She noted that there was a new Acting CEO and a new Acting CFO. She wanted to know what had happened to those who had previously been acting. She was pleased that the previous acting CFO was no longer acting, as she had been complicit in irregular contracts -- but where was she? She had been brought into the SABC in an acting position, and therefore she did not have a substantive position to fall back on to.

Ms Van Damme asked the Interim Board to conduct an enquiry into the Company Secretary, as she was not convinced that the appointment had been regular. She had been an Acting Company Secretary, and she was not sure that she had been appointed permanently.

She raised the issue of the court case involving the previous SABC Board Chairperson, Dr Mbulaheni Maguvhe. She wanted to know who had initiated the court case, as his lawyers had been paid to say that he was in his personal capacity in bringing the litigation in an attempt to stop the review report on the SABC. The SABC had not been part of that court case initially, and had joined it only later. Dr Maguvhe had been there in his personal capacity, so there needed to be an investigation into who in the SABC had approved the payment of his legal fees via the corporate insurance.

She was pleased that the SABC was no longer taking the Public Protector’s Report under review, and hoped that they would begin implementing the recommendations as soon as possible, particularly the issue of Ms Sully Motsweni who had been given irregular salary increases, and so on.

Ms M Matshoba (ANC) asked whether the Board was aware that the SABC was being taken to the (CCMA) by Mr Motsoeneng. Maybe he would drain the SABC. What was the Board going to do when they went to the CCMA?

Mr L Mbinda (PAC) was happy with the work done by the Interim Board. He wanted to know the rationale behind the condonation for the R2.1 billion related to the Sports Division. He was concerned about the work referred to the SIU, and wondered whether it should not be managed by the internal forensic unit because they were hands-on, and had an understanding of the situation. He knew that they had to conduct both internal and external investigations, but at least the internal investigations were within their competency and the Board could expedite that process without delay.

The recommendation regarding legal action to recover monies that had been paid was queried. Were they trying to hold the people responsible, or did they want to recover the money? He warned that they could not recover the money if payment had been approved by the Board. It was within the Board’s competency to approve payments.

He was trying to understand how they were going to deal with ordinary participants in meetings with those who had been involved in criminal activities. Had they identified those who had participated or been involved in the criminal activities? Had they been identified, or was the Board still in the process of identifying them? Did the Interim Board have timeframes so that they did not discuss the matter endlessly?

Ms N Tolashe (ANC) was impressed with the work of the Board. The members had done something that everyone had been yearning to do, but had not been able to do. They had changed the perception of people about Communications -- that they were not the most corrupt people in South Africa, but were good South Africans who were prepared to serve the nation and not become involved in corruption. She appreciated that the Board had won the court cases, especially against LornaVision.

She asked the Department of Communication (DoC) about people who were in acting positions. She hoped that acting officials were clean and had been vetted. There should be no question about anyone who was brought into the SABC. She commented that women got the work done; with men, work was discussed. She expressed concern about the insurance cover for people who might do something wrong. She queried why it was necessary to have that type of insurance. She emphasised the need to clean out the Sports Division at the SABC.

She asked about timeframes for the signing of the proclamation for the SIU to act. Even when good work had been done, the government was still very slow to respond. At least by the end of August, there should be action and the Speaker should be followed up on the signing of the proclamation. The Committee had chased everyone else. The Office of the President had to be the last hope for defending the country against corruption.

She said that the Board should investigate who had been involved in the intimidation of the ‘SABC 8.’ They could bring a case to court if the intimidation continued. The illegal surveillance of journalists was unacceptable. The Board was sending a good message, but there had to be implementation as well and there had to be consequences. The matter of the acting staff had to be speeded up, especially at the lower levels, where everyone had to be clean and able to account.

She had previously spoken to the Minister about the 90/10 policy on local content, and whether it had been properly implemented. The artists were being made to go hungry again. The Minister had to take the nation into her confidence, as artists were feeling isolated. There was a distorted perception of what was going on with regard to the local content. The Minister was there on behalf the people, and was implementing the policies of her own party, so she had to deal with the perceptions and indicate whether it was policy, and if it was policy, whether it had been implemented correctly. Artists could not be isolated from the nation and nation building. The Minister could not allow people to think that the government was reckless and did not care about the people. People were taking advantage of those perceptions, which were not necessarily correct. She wanted to congratulate the Interim Board on not claiming the money that was due to them, but she believed that claim forms should be signed at the end of the meeting so that they could get what was due to them.

Mr M Gungubele (ANC) concurred with those who had commended the Interim Board, but they had to be aware that full clarity of the picture had emerged only when the clarification process began. He was, however, worried about two things. How dependent on the Board were the timeframes of the SIU? If the Board had no influence on the SIU timeframes, what other options did they have? He also was not sure whether all matters had to be referred to the SIU.

The Chairperson said that he believed that the matter of the SIU had to be referred to the Justice Portfolio Committee. Such interaction would reveal who was delaying the matter. The MultiChoice matter needed further explanation, as there was a DSTV problem. He referred to the matter of the surveillance, and those who had left the SABC. Where were those people? What were their issues? What was the nature of the surveillance? The Act was very specific, but five part-time people could not do everything in six months as it was an overload, and the Committee should try harder to assist. Maybe it was something that the Committee should have looked at. He did not know whether the Interim Board could cope with all the work to be done within the time permitted.

 

Response by SABC Interim Board

Ms Kweyane addressed question of the MOI, saying that she could understand why Members of the Committee were confused, as there had been a few amendments to the MOIs at the SABC. The one that was properly in place was the 2014 MOI. There was no evidence that subsequent MOIs had been lodged with the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC), so they were not valid. The 2014 MOI was sometimes referred to as the Dina Pule (former Minister of Communications) MOI. The appointment of the Company Secretary also fell under the 2014 MOI, and they were sure that the Company Secretary had been correctly appointed, but they would go back and do a final sweep to check for any irregularity.

She assured the Committee that there was a good working relationship with the SIU, although the SIU had not yet commenced work at the SABC as they were waiting for the proclamation giving them permission to get involved. The Interim Board had met with the SIU, which had also met with the internal auditors. They had set up an office to begin collecting documents so that when the proclamation was signed, they would be ready to get started. Although a number of contracts were on the agenda for the SIU, that had not stopped the Interim Board from progressing with the matter and doing what was right for the SABC. For example, the contract with LornaVision had been cancelled, and LornaVision had taken the SABC to court for monies owed to them. However, they had lost the case and the contract had been set aside, which meant that the SABC could make a claim against LornaVision from the time that the contract had been instituted.

When the proclamation was passed, the Interim Board would meet with the SIU and indicate which matters on the list had already been dealt with. The Interim Board had not waited for the proclamation for the SIU to begin work, but had addressed the matter of Mr Motsoeneng’s bonus and had written to the pension fund. Some of the matters were sub judice, so the Chairperson of the Interim Board did not want to discuss those matters in public. They did not want to put the legal strategy out in the public eye, as when they went after a matter, they wanted to win. She confirmed that Mr Motsoeneng had taken the SABC to the CCMA as a result of his dismissal, but she did not want to go into further details as to how they would approach the matter. The same situation applied to Mr Aguma as well. They did not simply drop the matter when someone resigned.

Mr John Matisonn, a member of the Interim Board, reported on the issue of the intimidation of the ‘SABC 8.’ He had also established a relationship with the family of Suna Venter following her passing. The Venters were a wonderful family and they had handled themselves with great dignity and without bitterness. He was humbled by his encounters with them. They had had several colloquia with the entire staff, but it was a process and it did not happen overnight. They had assured people that they were free to raise concerns as long as it happened through the process. He felt that there was evidence that people were feeling more secure. There was some progress with investigations into the situation but the problem lay in finding out who the source of those decisions was, and answering the question of where the intimidation had really started.

Ms Van Damme asked whether they had had any engagement with the SAPS regarding the intimidation issue.

The Chairperson of the Interim Board said that she had no knowledge of what SAPS was doing, but that she would investigate and report back to the Committee in writing. On the finances, she was pleased to say that they had appointed an independent financial expert to the SABC Board.

Mr Matisonn reported on the ‘going concern’ issues. The financial expert had a very modest contract, and they were getting support from people who had worked for the SABC previously, but felt that their expertise of not been fully utilised, such as with regard to the turnaround strategies. The Audit and Risk Committee under Krish Naidoo had worked closely with the Auditor General (AG). The AG’s report would cover the financial year ending just before the Interim Board had begun work. When the Interim Board had commenced work, they had found that the financial management at the SABC had collapsed. He had unaudited figures, so they could not be released, but he could state that the trend from April to June had been extremely positive. There were cyclical and seasonal events that they still had to understand, but there had been month on month improvement. However, they did believe that there were figures missing and issues that would have to be double-checked.

Regarding the question about a going concern, he could conclude that, based on the figures and the improvement that they had seen over the past three months, plus the interaction with Treasury over the guarantee, the SABC was a going concern. That did not undermine the concerns of the Committee Members, as it had been a close call and it was a very good thing that Parliament had intervened when it did.

The Chairperson of the Interim Board said that she had responded to the concern about the SIU, and assured Mr Ndlozi that the prosecutions were going forward. She pointed out that Mr Aguma had resigned in the middle of a hearing. The SABC had been advised to accept his resignation, but that would not put a stop to a follow-up on issues relating to Mr Aguma. The Interim Board was waiting for the Minister in order to go ahead with the appointments of the CEO and the COO. Neither she, nor any of the Board members, had felt harassed or intimidated during the process. She believed that the appointment process had been very fair and they had kept applications secure so that there could be no lobbying. She informed the Committee that the tenure of the acting Head of News had ended on 31 July 2017. The Board would announce a new acting Head of News, and would be advertising to have the position permanently filled.

Ms Nomsa Philiso, acting Group CEO, confirmed that the Sports Department had been mired in impropriety and possibly in corruption. There had been a lot of engagement between the Board and the Sports Department. It was in the top five things to do, as the expense line did not make sense. There were some payments that needed to be investigated.

Ms Bessie Tugwana responded to Mr Ndlozi and Ms van Damme about problems in the news environment. This environment was broken, and they were looking more deeply into what had caused the problem. The start of the division had coincided with the editorial policy project. They had subsequently been using the editorial policy to renew the news. They would be getting input from the public which would inform how news should be gathered, what news should be gathered, etc, as the SABC was there to serve the public. They were looking into the leadership in the news division and would not be renewing acting roles. The matter was being taken very seriously. The appointment of a Head of News was imminent, but that information would be made available as soon as the process allowed.

Ms Kweyane responded to the question regarding ‘enforcers’. It was not possible to simply say that certain people had been identified as ‘enforcers’ and that therefore they would be dismissed. The SABC had to follow the required labour relations processes. The people identified would be investigated. She asked for the confidence of the Committee that nothing would slip under the radar. It was not just about going after people, but also about raising the morale of people. The staff had stated that they had no confidence in management and things had to be addressed correctly, otherwise the SABC would be involved in a lot of pay-outs for which they did not have the money. For example, while she was live on a show, she had been handed a petition by the staff. It had been dramatic, but once she returned to her office, she had had to deal with it in terms of appropriate processes. Forensic audit reports had had recommendations, and these had led to them writing letters informing people who would be investigated.

Mr Tseliso Ralitabo, Group Executive for Media Technology, had acted as CEO when Mr Aguma was away. When Mr Aguma had resigned, a list of potential acting CEOs had been presented to the Minister. Mr Ralitabo was going to stay in his substantive role, as he had the expertise to continue with the rollout of the digitalisation migration.

Ms Philiso explained that Ms Geldenhuys had been employed as General Manager for Financial Reporting in February 2016, and had then acted as CFO from June 2016. She was back in her substantive role.

Ms Kweyane said that corporate insurance was important, as litigants sued not only an organisation but also Board members as individuals. They had engaged with the insurance company, and although the premium had come from the SABC, the payment had been made by the insurance company. The Board had changed the insurance supplier when the previous company had withdrawn, as the SABC had been considered high risk. The new agreement had many exclusions for those Board members who might be sued in their own right. Certain executives were individually excluded from the insurance policy, largely based on the insurance company’s own risk analysis. Corporate insurance was prescribed by the Companies Act.

She said that the SABC would be present at the CCMA hearing on Mr Motsoeneng’s dismissal. The Board was doing a number of things internally, but the Board could not act more swiftly as they were seeking legal advice before actions were taken, including laying criminal charges. She assured the Committee that they had met all deadlines.

Regarding the acting roles, the SABC Board had given the Minister a list of recommended staff and the Minister had appointed. The Department of Communications was not involved in the appointment of people at the SABC. The proclamation matter was not the responsibility of the Board, but the Minister of Communications had made enquiries with the Presidency. The illegal surveillance issue had not been followed up, because the Interim Board had only a few transcripts from people who had since left the SABC, but they would reconsider the position in response to the comments and questions by Committee Members, especially in the light of its effect on others within the Corporation. The Interim Board now believed that it needed to get to the source of it so that it did not happen again.

LornaVision would be sued for the profits that it had been made from the SABC. The MultiChoice contract had been handed over to the SIU and the internal auditors, but there were issues regarding the digital roll-out and the archives that would be followed up. Mr Matisonn and the audit team had examined the many contracts with MultiChoice. There are many versions of the contracts, and they were disadvantageous to the SABC and to South Africa. They were working on the matter and the contract was up for renewal in 11 months’ time. Those contracts had quite considerable financial implications for the SABC. The archives contract was to give MultiChoice use of old fictional material for 60 days, particularly ‘soapies’ and Afrikaans material from the old days, but the main problem was around the news. Archived news on the News 24 channel could not be supplied to anyone without permission from MultiChoice, and that was unacceptable. The SABC had cameras all over the country that nobody else had, but was not permitted to provide the material to anyone, not even the BBC or other international broadcasting corporations, even when the SABC felt that the news was of international importance. A private corporation had control over such matters.

Ms Philiso said that she was not going to reveal the SABC’s funding strategy, but she could share with the Committee that the SABC had undertaken a thorough financial analysis and had provided information to the DoC on the unfunded mandate. They had spoken to Treasury about certain cost aspects, such as the sport issue. They were fully aware that they could not go to government and ask for more and more money, so they were diversifying their income stream and looking at other aspects that they could use for revenue. Advertising revenue was shrinking for everyone, not just the SABC, so they had to do something different.

They had been tasked to go into the R5 billion issue and determine what was in there. The R2.1 billion had been confirmed as corporate tax issues. It had had to do with copies instead of original versions. As the exercise continued, they would come back to the Committee with other explanations of the remaining funds.

In response to Ms van Damme on the News report, she was assured that they would look into it. The Board fees had been suspended until the guarantee was in place. The guarantee was therefore also a milestone for the Board.

Mr Matisonn spoke about 90/10 local content policy and the engagements with musicians who had been made promises about the local content becoming 90/10 and upwards, but they understood that the SABC was committed to local content. A few commercial stations had reduced local content slightly, but the were all well above the Independent Communications Authority of SA (ICASA) requirements. They were once again following their genre content, as per their ICASA licence conditions. With the exception of Radio Lotus, they were all are well above the minimum local content required. Radio Lotus was looking into ways to promote South African Indian music. The SABC was looking at creative solutions for providing local content, but needed assistance from the Department of Arts and Culture.

The SABC was seeking ways to protect and help the musicians as musicians had a very tough time, not only in South Africa, but internationally. It was not for the SABC alone to be concerned about the musicians, but they believed that with help from government departments, they would be able to produce programmes that would keep local content rising.

Ms Kweyane responded to a question on the target date for performance management agreements. They could not set a target date for the entire corporation until the executives had performance agreements in place, because the signing of performance agreements was a trickle-down process. The SABC had a good relationship with labour, but there were still certain issues to be resolved before they began negotiations. It was tough because of the financial situation in which the SABC found itself. All monies that were owed by SABC members were being audited.

 

Further Discussion

The Chairperson informed the Interim Board that when the Portfolio Committee had met SABC staff, they had raised a number of issues. They could see that there was a need for a mechanism for dealing with those people who had been affected by intimidation and harassment, etc. Those people were unable to perform their duties owing to low morale and trauma. He asked that the Board put supportive mechanisms and structures in place for those who had been affected.

Mr Gungubele said that when change had been introduced, especially in the SABC, inconsistent leadership had caused different groupings and factions to form. Depending on who was on top, one of the groups or factions could see themselves as the winner. He had been approached by a number of people from the SABC who feared change, and that they would be wiped away by the new management. They had to prevent the objectives of darkness being realised at the expense of other people.

Ms Van Damme was concerned that the Minister was over-reaching her mandate at the SABC. She was worried that politicians from that side of the spectrum were delaying issues at the SABC. The Minister had to be hands-on, but should not be overly involved. There had been too much executive involvement in the previous SABC Board. She reminded the Board that they had been appointed by Parliament, were accountable to Parliament and had to report to Parliament. She was concerned that the Board had applied for funding from Treasury, but the Committee had not been told how much had been requested. It was extremely worrying that Parliament was not being given information about the Interim Board’s engagement with Treasury. The Minister had said that the information could not been given out, but the Board reported to the Committee and therefore the Board Chairperson had to answer her query. Ms Van Damme said she would not be satisfied with the response that the Minister had to answer the question, as the Minister was not there to answer for herself. How much was the Interim Board requesting from National Treasury?

She also noted that several members had been moved back to their substantive positions, despite having once been labelled as ‘enforcers’, and she was worried that they still had influence. When was there going to be disciplinary action against those persons? She was not saying that they were guilty, but that there needed to be an investigation into the veracity of the claims that they were enforcers. She also wanted to know about the position of the security guards at the SABC who had been fearful that they would not be paid. She wanted to know whether the issues around the tender for security at the SABC had been resolved.

Mr Mbinda asked about the insurance cover. As a Board Chairperson who had been involved in gross negligence, Dr Maguvhe should not be paid for by the insurance cover. He agreed that corporate insurance was needed to give cover to Board members, but wanted to know if the insurance gave blanket cover, even in cases of gross negligence. He asked whether the Interim Board had looked into the situation, or had simply accepted that the insurance policy had covered the legal fees.

Mr Tseli asked Mr Matisonn about the royalties to be paid to the musicians. He asserted that some musicians had not been paid the amounts agreed upon. He also asked about the numbers of employees who would be signing performance contracts. Would performance contracts also be put in place at the regional level? He was confused about the figure of 2 000 that the Chairperson of the Interim Board had referred to.

Mr Kalako proposed that it was fair to call the Minister to appear before the Committee to answer questions, such as the amount of money that the SABC needed. He also asked the Board to give the Committee the names of those involved in intimidation, in order to find out whether the Inspector General or the Minister of Intelligence and state security people knew about it. He wanted the names so that they could call the people to the Committee.

Mr Swart touched on the insurance issue. If the interdict in the Western Cape high court was brought by the former Chairman in his private capacity, the corporate insurance could not cover the costs as he had not approached the court in his capacity as a director. It was a mark of the court’s displeasure that he had been ordered to pay personal costs. Parliament was going to call for government departments and SOEs to pay costs where they lost court cases, especially where directors recklessly litigated in their private capacity. The question in the Dr Maguvhe case was who had briefed the lawyers. Someone -- and it was not the former Chairman -- had briefed the lawyers and paid a deposit to initiate the litigation on the Professor’s behalf, and he had said that he was acting in his personal capacity because he did not have permission from the Board to litigate.

Mr Swart was concerned about the SUI, and suggested that the Committee engage with the Justice Committee. The proclamation was sitting with the President and was therefore out of the hands of the Minister of Justice. The Committee had to determine what a reasonable time was for the President to engage with the matter. He said that his question about the Treasury guarantee had not been responded to, but that the Minister would be called upon to respond to the question. In terms of the 2016/17 audit report, the Auditor General would not give a good report, but the confidential audit management letters, which were sent three months later, would show the improvement in the financial situation.

Mr Ndlozi was not completely satisfied about the acting CEO’s response about the News Department. The attitude seemed to be that they could workshop the problems away. He assured the SABC that they would not be able to workshop problems away. The Committee needed a more concrete answer about what was happening. Ms Nothando Maseko was going back to Head of Television News after acting as Head of all News. The decisions that she had taken were very dangerous to editorial integrity and very worrying. How could anyone trust the News Department? No one, not even the journalists, trusted SABC news. People had to be held accountable for the decisions that they had taken. Everything had rested on Hlaudi Motsoeneng, the previous COO, who had run the entire show and had taken very bad decisions. He told the Acting CEO that the workshop would not work.

Ms Van Damme wanted to know more about the insurance fund -- how much the SABC had paid in premiums, and how much had been paid out for litigation. More detail could be provided at the next meeting.

Ms Tolashe asked for an assurance that insurance would not be used to pay for people who had acted unlawfully. Those who undermined the laws that governed the country should not be covered by corporate insurance. Secondly, she wanted to follow up on Mr Swart’s questions about who had instigated the litigation. She wanted to know what information the Interim Board had in that regard. The matter of surveillance had to be followed up. In a meeting, officials had told them things that had made it clear that there had been surveillance, as they had been told things that could have been said only by Koevoet.

When she had visited the SABC, she had felt that she was in a military camp as there had been a huge contingent of security guards. SABC was a national key point, but she believed that the security personnel were too physical and seemed to over-react. Was it necessary to have that level of security in the SABC offices? Furthermore, in the light of the financial situation at the SABC, could they afford to have so many security personnel?

Mr Gungubele referred to the litigation. He suggested that a proper policy regarding when and where to litigate was required to sustain an approach to legal matters so that decisions were not based on personalities. He believed that the work done so far in the SABC was being led by sane people, and it was important to have trust in them. He said it was not the Committee’s job to get involved in the details about who should work in which positions in the corporation. The Committee needed to address the behaviour of SABC, and senior management should deal with individuals. He also believed that the lack of trust was key to the problems at SABC. Trust had to be induced, but it could not be generated from a directive. He wanted to advocate workshops, as this would allow discussion and engagements and create a situation of clarity. Everyone at the SABC needed to understand the purpose, and thereafter anyone who did not act in line with that purpose could be punished. Workshops and disciplinary action were not mutually exclusive and everyone should be given a chance to do the right things.

Mr Ndlozi said that leadership had to be held accountable, as they had the power to take decisions. Confidence and trust came about when the right people were put in positions that had previously been wrongly filled as a result of nepotism or patronage. He wanted to know what had happened to the former CEO, Mr Jimi Matthews -- whether he had received a pay-out and should be considered for criminal charges.

The Chairperson informed the meeting that another SABC official had been booked into hospital for anxiety and depression.

He understood that the Committee had agreed that the Minister had to be requested to appear before the Committee to present information on the funds, and to explain herself. He was of the opinion that that was the correct decision.

The Interim Board Chairperson joked that the Interim Board also needed to be booked in for stress. She explained that the Wellness Department had been part of the intervention. The intervention included workshops, wellness intervention, and redeploy, advertise and appoint. The position of Group Executive of News was one of the positions that would be advertised externally. Wellness related to counselling, giving of injections, giving of advice about eating and physical health and so on.

The intervention in the News Department was big, and was not just about workshops. Whenever a position came up, the Board would review the circumstances around that position. They were also looking at a restructuring of the organogram and reporting lines instead of simply dealing with individuals. News had, and currently still, reported to the COO as a result of past loyalties. The Board was also working their way through the organisation slowly and surely, as they did not want to lose cases. They also did not want to create additional unrest among personnel at the SABC. The legal department had exhausted its budget, and so they had had to allocate funds for that department. They were putting people back in their substantive roles in order to avoid labour relations issues, until they had made decisions regarding individuals. Those who had had action taken against them had obviously not beenreturned to substantive positions. They did not want to be a Board of discipline only.

The issue of security guards was about a security company that had not been paid, but the company had since been paid. There were two security companies – the second had been appointed via a contract process that had started a couple of years previously. The number of security personnel at the SABC head office when the Committee had visited was not the normal for the 28th floor. Additional guards had probably been redeployed from other places because the Portfolio Committee was there. Nevertheless, security personnel were to be reduced, and staff moved to the provinces. The Board was looking at the insurance issue with the new service provider.

Ms Tuzwana informed the Committee that the SABC directors’ and officials’ liability costs amounted to R1.1 million per year. They would be meeting with the insurance service provider to discuss the matter. The Chairperson had heard from a lot of people who had complained about their exit from the SABC. Executives had also taken settlements, but now wanted to be re-instated. Those people were very quick to go to their lawyers. The Interim Board was not going to re-instate people who had taken settlement fees or had admitted guilt, even if they said that they had done so under pressure. She noted that the Committee Chairperson had stated that the questions about money should go to the relevant authority.

Ms Van Damme said that her question had not been answered. She explained that the previous Board had been forced to do certain things. As a Member of Parliament, she was asking for information about the finances, which she had a right to do as according to the law, the Board reported to Parliament, not the Minister. They had a choice to make. The Interim Board could abide by the law or they could side with the Minister. However, she herself would be satisfied with an assurance that the Minister would respond to the question about funds.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had agreed to call the Minister. The Member was abusing the time of the Committee. A decision had been taken and he did not want Members to argue. Everything would be handled by the Chairperson’s support team.

Mr Ndlozi noted on a point of order that he had not agreed.

The Chairperson amended his statement and said that he had ruled that the Minister had to be asked to appear before Parliament.

Mr Ndlozi asked who had applied for the money - the Minister or the Board?

The Chairperson said that Parliament voted money for departments and entities. He then adjourned the meeting, to the displeasure of the EFF and the DA.

The meeting was adjourned.