SABC Board on retrenchments; with Ministry

Meeting report

The Chairperson indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to attend to the recent pronouncement by the SABC of the planned retrenchment of 400 of its employees. He asked if the Minister wanted to make opening remarks and Minister replied that the Deputy Minister would make the opening remarks

Opening remarks by Deputy Minister
Deputy Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies, Ms Pinky Kekana, stated that like ordinary South Africans, the shareholder has only just noted the processes that are unfolding. The Shareholder did not have the privilege to hear from the SABC Board prior to their public announcement.

In the last encounter with the Committee on 20 October, she had mentioned the key priorities that the Department would prioritise to assist SABC. Top of the agenda was the Shareholder’s aim to assist the entity reduce the cost of labour. Both the SABC and the Shareholder have also been engaged in discussions to reduce signal distribution costs. There had been several discussions between the Department, SABC and Sentech to look at these options to aid the SABC. During those discussions, SABC indicated the costly signal distribution particularly in sparsely populated areas. In response, the Department said that it would look at policy and legislative reforms. The Department also had an engagement with the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA), specifically at reviewing the must-carry rule. The White Paper on Audio and Audiovisual Content Services has been released which will be used as an enabler to deal with concerns affecting SABC.

The Department informed the SABC Board that the amendments to the Broadcasting Act are currently in the pipeline. The Minister had referred the draft document to the Cabinet Committee, who then referred it to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to assist with some concerns raised in the meeting.

In a previous Committee meeting, she informed Members that the TV licence regime needed to be relooked at to consider the new Over-The-Top (OTT) platform, and the expanded use of new devices beyond television sets.  She referred to the comments made by a communications specialist on the White Paper, that SABC and the Shareholder should look at introducing public media levies because TV licence revenue is reduced while content is consumed on OTT platforms and other devices and SABC would run the risk of losing an opportunity to gain revenue from that. The Department is looking into its viability.

The Department has also looked at how to increase investment in content for SABC. In that same Committee meeting, she indicated that the Shareholder is looking at the viability of having dedicated health and education channels on SABC. There have been engagements with the Ministers of Health and Basic Education to look at the modality of that. National Treasury needed to be engaged with on the baseline the broadcaster has been allocated and to survey if grant funding could be allocated for the unfunded mandate of SABC. Through the Committee, the Department could lobby on these matters as the unfunded mandate is a long-standing concern.

The Department also noted that it needed to engage SABC on human capital. At the 21 July Committee meeting she informed Members she had requested that SABC leadership suspend the retrenchment process, as the unions felt the process was flawed. Therefore, the Department felt that this process should have been consultative. The Department is aware of the Treasury conditionality about personnel numbers and the budget dedicated to the wage bill. Retrenchment has been a process that has been in the pipeline since 2018. To provide alternative solutions, the Department suggested that SABC leadership conduct a skills audit and examine the natural attrition potential the entity has. It was suggested that when looking at the jobs affected, the leadership should disclose the category of jobs where there is duplication and redundancy. However, to their surprise, the SABC leadership continued with the retrenchment process.

The SABC Board has a responsibility to brief the Shareholder, from time to time, on developments within the entity. The Board is yet to inform the Shareholder how many individuals affected by the retrenchment fall under natural attrition. This was the preferred process for the Shareholder as it did not favour forcing employees to take a severance package.

It had been suggested to the SABC Board that they should continue to look at the new revenue streams that it is currently contemplating; and examine if there is potential value from these revenue streams. The Board should evaluate if this value would aid in mitigating the cost containment of personnel.

The Department was concerned that if the process was not followed accordingly, there would be increased litigation from employees. This was a concern, as the entity had lost many of its previous litigation cases. If SABC Board loses court cases it chose to pursue, this should not be at the expense of the entity, as the entity lacked the funds. The Department has suggested that if such cases are lost, Board members should pay the costs.

National Treasury is working on improving the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) to allow state owned entities (SOEs) to trade without barriers.

The Department is mindful of the challenges that SABC faces and is committed to assisting the entity. However, its ability to assist has been slowed by the fact that the board has not engaged with the Shareholder in good faith. The Department has extended an olive branch to assist the SABC, as it had a mandate to do so. It has not undermined the role that the SABC Board plays. On issues of national interest, both parties need to take each other on board and find ways of dealing with the challenges facing SABC. To date, the Department has not received a report from the SABC on why it cannot pay salaries. This has made it difficult for the Department to aid the SABC in gaining assistance on the matter. It is important to take note of the concerns raised by the trade unions that the retrenchment process is flawed – these should be taken seriously and are, in fact, valid.

Discussion
Ms P van Damme (DA) requested that the Committee not allow for the individual Board members to provide testimonies, as this would distract from engagement on the retrenchments.

The Chairperson said that in the earlier meeting, it was agreed that the Committee would allow each Board member to be allocated time to have a fair reflection on their perspective on the retrenchment process. This would ensure that there was a balance of opinions.

SABC Board Chairperson comments
The SABC Board Chairperson, Mr Bongumusa Makhathini, confirmed that the Board had a meeting with the Minister to update and brief her on the Section 189 process. In the same meeting, the Minister implored the Board to explore other options. No decisions were taken at that meeting. Decisions taken by the Executive are informed by Board resolutions. In order to make informed decisions, the Board members required all the details. A board meeting was scheduled for the following day.

He confirmed that there had been engagements between the Board, ICASA and Sentech on what can be done about signal distribution costs and the current regulatory framework. The Must Carry Regulations of 2017 have had a serious impact on the SABC from a potential revenue point of view. SABC had listed all the regulator constraints that prevented it from being financially viable. The board is projecting a loss of R1.2 billion. This was also dependent on the R3.2 billion received as a bailout from Treasury. If the Board did not implement the turnaround strategy plan properly, SABC would return to its ICU state. It had also been affected by the Lockdown and they had requested assistance because SABC had to displace normal programming to make way for public announcements. They were not able to receive additional funds as Treasury made it clear that there would be no further bailouts.

He appreciated the efforts made in assisting SABC by the Shareholder. He was concerned by the large salary bill at the broadcaster, which stood at 43% of the total budget. If the Board decided not to make difficult decisions, the broadcaster would end up in a worse financial position. There are monthly meetings between the executive team and the Department, which also involved National Treasury, where updates on the broadcaster’s financial situation are provided. He requested that the other Board members and the Executives make their comments.

SABC CEO comments
SABC Group CEO, Mr Madoda Mxakwe, said that the SABC is at a crossroads and is currently operating in a competitive environment. As it has an unfunded mandate, the leadership had to ensure that the entity generates enough revenue in the market, to ensure it fulfils its mandate. Advertising revenue has been affected by the current economic conditions. As such, the leadership has taken steps to reduce the losses. Its annual report shows that they have reduced expenses by R1.8 billion. He clarified that the cost-cutting process is not solely about employee compensation. The leadership had to ensure that the net losses, year on year, are reduced. Presently the Board is concerned with how it can run a sustainable organisation that can fulfil its mandate. To be in line with the bailout conditions and the turnaround strategy, if 43% of the budget goes to compensation of employees  – there would problems in the future. To maintain the current financial structure, a concrete commitment had to be made by government to fund the unfunded public mandate. The leadership did not take pleasure in retrenching its employees but for the survival of institution, the decision had to be taken.

On the Deputy Minister’s point that the unions referred to the process as flawed, he said that the SABC leadership had engaged with labour and other relevant stakeholders. They have taken into account that livelihoods are at stake and that is why they had gone beyond the regulatory environment when engaging with the relevant parties, to ensure that everyone was on board.

He confirmed that the leadership did have monthly meetings with the Department and Treasury. In those meetings, they discuss the progress on the implementation of the turnaround plan. It was important to note that the Board has a responsibility to ensure the sustainability of the organisation. The retrenchment of the employees forms part of the process to ensure this occurs. Some of the matters the broadcaster faced were legacy issues and more work was required to ensure that these are put in order.

Originally, the number of affected employees stood at 600. Once the Board had considered this proposition, they requested that the Executive should reconsider this number and ensure that the process is done in a sensitive and humane manner. This would include providing professional counselling for affected employees. After considering the Board’s request, the Executive decided to reduce the number of affected employees to 400. They were aware that they could not force employees to take voluntary severance packages. However, they noted that some employees could go on retirement. Currently, there are 170 vacant positions at the entity and if the affected employees have the required experience and education, they can apply for those positions. This would further reduce the number of employees retrenched. When they were appointed to their positions, the leadership made a commitment to run an organisation that would not be a perpetual burden on the state fiscus and the decision to retrench was an extension of this commitment.

Mr Makhathini noted that other executive members wanted to contribute at a later stage.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that the Members' question session had to come first then the individual Board members would be able to do so.

Ms P Faku (ANC) pointed out that the Chairperson had already made a ruling on this matter.

The Chairperson indicated that he had made a ruling but he had to consider the views of all parties present in the meeting about the proceedings.

Ms Faku appreciated the opportunity to engage with SABC on the retrenchments. She recommended that the Committee acknowledge that some challenges the broadcaster faces are historical. However, the SABC leadership should note the Members were displeased with how the process had unfolded. It was concerning that there had been no communication between the broadcaster and the Shareholder on the retrenchments. In previous meetings, the Committee had made it clear that retrenchments should not be an option and that more solutions should be tabled by the Board – for the Committee to engage on them. In the last meeting, the Board assured the Members that it would provide a report to the Committee before it took a decision to retrench. She was displeased that the Board had not followed due process and had also not kept to their word. Only junior staff members were suffering as a result of the retrenchments, not the Executive.

The  Auditor General noted that 82% (R233m) of the irregular expenditure in the Communications portfolio had been incurred by SABC. In addition, 99% of the fruitless expenditure had been incurred by SABC. She asked if the individual responsible for finances had been held to account. In a meeting the previous day, the  Auditor General  said that there had been no consequence management at the SABC. The audit report was concerning, as the conditions of the bailout required the entity to generate revenue, but this had not been done in two years. Money has been invested in content but there has been no results to date.

In the 14 August committee meeting, Members had asked if SABC had engaged the unions on its decision to retrench its employees. In the written response provided by SABC, it indicated that since the unions did not make "up 51%", it did not have to engage with them. This clearly meant that the leadership had not engaged the unions properly. The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) made a ruling against the SABC which said that it should refrain from implementing its decision of retrenchment, until it had completed its engagements with labour. She suggested that leadership should engage with both the unions and the shareholder on this matter.

Currently, the SABC salary bill sits at 43% which includes the salaries of the Executive; some of whom are earning more than R5 million. Yet there has been no progress and it continues to expect further bailouts from government. The SABC has taken a drastic decision to retrench its employees and the manner in which the process has unfolded has not been right. She asked if there is capacity at SABC and if the Board had provided oversight over the Executive.

She recommended that SABC adopt and support the Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT). In addition, it should develop a compelling content strategy to renew its relations with MultiChoice. Government has issued DTT directives yet SABC has refused to follow those directives. This was disappointing as this could generate additional revenue.

The Auditor General found that the quality of SABC Annual Financial Statements (AFS) were poor. She asked why the Group CEO had not ensured that the AFS were of good quality. Contract management, strategic planning and performance management were also highlighted as challenges. She asked how the Committee could accept the decision to retrench employees when the SABC still faced such challenges.

The unions have alleged that the methodology used by the broadcaster for its skills audit was poor; employees had been called to ask about their skills. This was not effective. She asked why it had continued with retrenchments as they were now aware of the skills present in the entity. Had they provided employees with other options as a result of the skills audit?

Litigation costs at SABC are worrisome as this has been a long-standing problem. She noted a recent case where the broadcaster lost against a former employee and refused to reinstate her in her previous position. How much of the bailout money had been spent on litigation costs? The SABC must ensure it generates revenue and retrenchments should not be an option. The Committee agrees with the pronouncement made by the President that there should be no further job losses in the country.

Ms Faku said that engagements between the shareholder and SABC have never been cordial. The positive balance in their finances represents the bailout money received from Treasury. She recommended that the leadership look at the skills capacity of the entity and the role of the Board is providing oversight. She concluded by stating the retrenchment gave the impression that the Board did not care about the livelihoods of its employees.

Ms Van Damme said she was irritated as these were matters that had been discussed several times by the Committee and SABC. She was not grandstanding and would not be looking to gain political points when making her remarks. It was clear that there were two competing interests. One was that the broadcaster needed to find ways to balance its financial books. This went against the interests of the staff, who did not want to lose their jobs. Retrenchments has been on the table for two years. It was unacceptable that the political leadership continued to point fingers in the direction of SABC. She requested that both parties sit down and engage as adults. She characterised the behaviour of the Deputy Minister and Minister as childish.

Treasury had previously said that there needs to be a headcount reduction. She was concerned that the staff had not been treated fairly by SABC leadership. Staff mistreatment was highlighted in the Parliamentary Inquiry on SABC.

Deputy Minister Kekana interjected on a point of order.

The Chairperson recognised her and asked what her point of order was.

Deputy Minister Kekana took issue with Ms van Damme’s statement that the behaviour of the political leadership had been childish. She accused her of grandstanding.

The Chairperson asked Ms van Damme to withdraw the comment and refrain from using the word.

Ms Van Damme withdrew the word 'childish', for the purposes of continuing the meeting.

Mr L Molala (ANC) requested that Ms van Damme focus on the agenda which was retrenchments of the employees at SABC and not to place too much focus on the political leadership.

The Chairperson requested that Members not engage on side issues when the Committee had to deal with a serious matter.

Mr V Pambo (EFF) requested that the Chairperson take control of the meeting, as the Committee had been distracted by petty matters. He asked that the Committee allow Ms van Damme to conclude her point and that ANC members should desist from delaying the proceedings with their interjections. The Committee had to deal with matters that are serious.

The Chairperson agreed that the Members should focus on the matter at hand.

Mr Pambo discouraged the Chairperson from abusing his position and that he should refrain from speaking on his behalf. All Members have the right to speak.

Mr Molala asked that Members desist from pointing fingers at one another.

The Chairperson took issue with Mr Pambo’s point and indicated that he had never abused his position as the Chair of the Committee. He ruled that Ms van Damme should continue. He clarified that he had recognised the various points of order as he believed they could assist proceedings.

Ms van Damme said that the challenges facing SABC should not be politicised. In their next appearance, both the political leadership and the Board should not air their grievances with one another, as this distracted the Committee from dealing with the agenda.

She took issue that one of the Board members had gone on TV to communicate her disagreement with the Board decision to retrench the employees. Through this action, the Board member had breached her duty as Board member. This would be taken up and she would ensure that action is taken against the Board member. Her action had not assisted the issues at hand. She discouraged Board members from going public with their differences in the future.

It should not be the responsibility of Parliament to resolve this matter. In fact, it did not have the legal authority to do so. Parliament’s duty is to uphold the law.

Mr Molala said that SABC is currently in crisis. SABC projected a loss of R1.2 billion. The retrenchment process is an attempt by the entity to receive a further bailout from Treasury.

He was surprised that SABC had charged several people yet there had been no consequence management. Some of the executives should also be retrenched for producing poor results.

He was surprised that the institution decided to retrench the staff. There were processes that needed to be followed prior to doing so. Once they had completed the staff skills audit, they should have then looked and decided which staff members were eligible for the vacant 187 positions – instead of advertising the posts. This left the workers vulnerable to retrenchment.

The Auditor General indicated that the Executives had not taken responsibility for governance – the Group CEO included. This was a serious statement.

On the allegation that the bailout funds had been irregularly spent, he asked how the leadership would explain that R200 million irregular expenditure whilst the entity maintained that it could not pay its workers. There needs to be greater oversight by the Executives on the financial performance of the entity.

Mr Molala said that it was not fair to attack the Minister and the Deputy Minister. They had only alleged that the entity had not engaged the shareholder in good faith. Members had also felt that SABC had not engaged Parliament in good faith. On several occasions, SABC leadership has received advice from the Committee but had not taken that advice into consideration. For instance, Members had previously appealed to them to refrain from court cases, yet they had not done so. This was, in effect, undermining Parliament. He wondered how they would be able to turnaround the situation with low staff morale.

At the 25 May meeting, the Committee advised them that once they issued retrenchment letters, they had to follow due process. He accused the SABC officials of being arrogant.

When SABC had requested a bailout, it first appeared before Parliament and presented a plan on how to turnaround the entity. There were three conditions attached to the bailout and the salary bill was not one of them. He suggested that the Committee should convene its own meeting to have an assessment on the current situation and what steps needed to be taken.

The Committee has advised that there are other options besides retrenchment it should look at. He was not pleased with the explanation provided by the entity on why the decision was taken.

Mr Pambo said that he was pleased that some of the Board members had gone public to express that this decision was not agreed to by all members. With the current employment crisis, it is not acceptable that a national entity is contributing to further unemployment of the black majority.

He suggested that the Committee should pressure SABC not to shed any jobs. The failure to turnaround the entity should fall to the Board members, not the employees. The SABC must ensure that the suspension of the retrenchment letters should remain. He encouraged the Board to go back and find ways to prevent the retrenchments from taking place.

He was concerned that some Board members had said that the SABC should mirror profit making organisations such as eNCA. This would mean that the people would not have a voice. The SABC is the only station that can reach communities found on the outskirts of the country. SABC should not view itself as a profit making entity; instead, it should look to be self-sustainable and to ensure that it cushions unemployment in the country. No worker should be retrenched. The fact that retrenchment was the only option on the table indicated that the Board had no imagination.

Ms N Khubeka (ANC) said that the Committee is aware that SABC is independent. The Committee did not seek to interfere in its processes, it only sought to provide assistance.

For a solution to arise on the retrenchments, relations between the Board, Committee and the Shareholder had to be cordial. She did not support the retrenchment of the employees. She suggested that SABC leadership look at Sentech relations between its leadership and its employees. Through good relations, it has managed to have seven consecutive clean audits. Presently, SABC has been spending too much on litigation costs. She asked if there were no viable alternatives other than continuing with litigation.

Ms Khubeka said that the SABC leadership had not looked to use the results from the skills audit in its turnaround strategy. She asked why it had spent so much money on the skills audit if it did not plan to utilise the results.

She requested that SABC not engage in bad faith with stakeholders. The Committee understood that it faced several challenges and many of them were historical. It was clear that both the Shareholder and the Committee share the same position on retrenchments. There has also been miscommunication. However, the Committee has continually tried to engage with the Board.

It was concerning that the SABC leadership looked to retrench its employees when the salaries of the Executive made a up a large part of the salary bill. She asked if the leadership had looked at other viable options.

The Chairperson said that Board members would have the opportunity to speak once the Members had concluded their questions.

Mr T Gumbu (ANC) said that the SABC had appeared several times before the Committee and the Members informed them about exploring other avenues to avoid implementation of Section 189 but that had not happened. This suggested that they were not interested in doing so. Had they followed this advice; things would have turned out differently.

Ms A Mthembu (ANC) said that the retrenchments would have a significant impact on both the employees and the public. She asked if there had been collaboration between all role players to assist the SABC employees.

Ms Z Majozi (IFP) said that the retrenchments had been a long-standing matter. She suggested that the Shareholder engage with the Board on this matter. This was a sensitive matter and it required a different option that will work for both the entity and the employees. There cannot only be an option that favours one side.

Ms Faku said that at the August meeting, SABC leadership mentioned that there would be no retrenchments in its Eastern Cape office. However, this was not the case. She asked if the office would be closed down and if so, how it would be able to achieve its public mandate of providing news to the Eastern Cape.

The SABC editorial staff have indicated that they are fighting for the protection of the public service mandate, against the commercialisation of SABC. In terms of the Broadcasting Act, there must be a distinction between the two to protect the public mandate and to allow SABC to use proceeds from its commercial services to fund the public mandate.

Ms Faku said that the SABC employees have continued to perform diligently during difficult times. SABC should develop an audit action plan to resolve the poor governance and mismanagement findings, particularly irregular expenditure. More efforts need to be made to develop new income generating strategies and to cut some compensation costs, such as the leave benefit for executive management from 35 days to 30 days.

She thanked the Minister and the Deputy Minister for their urgency in attending to the matter after only receiving the news of the retrenchments the previous day.

Ms Faku said that she would not respond to some of the issues mentioned by Ms van Damme. Since she had been born in SA, she had a better understanding of the context of the challenges the country – unlike Ms van Damme who was not born in the country.

Ms van Damme called a point of order and said that the statement was xenophobic.

The Chairperson clarified the point made by Ms Faku that all she meant was that being a native of SA, she had a grasp of the challenges faced by the country.

Mr Pambo called a point of order as Ms Faku had expressed xenophobia publicly. He took issue with the Chairperson’s interpretation, as it had excused Ms Faku’s behaviour. He would not continue to sit in a Committee where xenophobic remarks had been both made and accepted. Ms van Damme should not be victimised for her birth status.

Ms Faku suggested that Mr Pambo should ask clarity from her on what she meant.

Ms Van Damme asked that Members move on and deal with the relevant matter at hand.

The Chairperson said that the political leadership and the Board could answer the questions.

Director-General response
Director-General, Ms Nomvuyiso Batyi, said that during the monthly monitoring task team meetings, Treasury, the Shareholder and SABC discuss the bailout conditions. The Shareholder also monitors the progress on the acquisition of programmes and how SABC has conducted savings.

On Section 189, she said that SABC has communicated in the meetings the lengths it has gone to avoid making this decision. In the last meeting between the Shareholder and SABC, it mentioned that SABC had had eight bilateral meetings with the unions. In the same meeting, the SABC Executive noted that it would communicate with the Board on its decision. The Department respects that it is an independent institution and the SABC Executive has to gain guidance from the Board before making decisions.

In a previous Committee meeting, the Department had presented to the Committee how it thought S189 should be executed, particularly on the job matching exercise. That job matching has not been completed but the Department understands that it would take time to conclude it.

In that meeting, the Members said there were policy changes affecting the SABC that were still sitting with the Department. She agreed that there are. Cabinet has approved the White Paper on Audiovisual Content and this would be presented to Parliament next week.

Mr Makhathini listed the speakers that would answer all questions posed by Members.

SABC Board Member Mohlala
Ms Mamodupi Mohlala, SABC Board Deputy Chairperson, said that she would not provide a backdrop on what led to the decision to implement S189. Rather, she would focus on the minority view of the Board on S189, and how they had voiced their disagreement on the approach taken by SABC. She was saddened that Board members in the minority had been grandstanding in their approach. Board members had tried to deal with the matter internally but had not been listened to. In addition, when they had seen how distressed the staff were, they recognised they had to speak out on their opposition to the retrenchments.

One of the bailout conditions was that a turnaround strategy had to be implemented. Key to that strategy was that signal distribution costs and the high salary bill had to be lowered. It was understood in that context that several options would be considered to deal with the salary bill. There were two meetings, one in the Board Subcommittee for Human Resources and one at Board level. In both meetings, the Group CEO gave a guarantee and undertaking that S189 would not be implemented and other options would be considered. The Executive then changed its mind, and the Board was suddenly told that S189 was the only way the matter could be solved legally. Board members in the minority did not agree with this sentiment. They did not understand how SABC could implement its turnaround plan when key role players had been served termination letters. The turnaround required a staff with the right morale. Executive members are still being appointed at SABC and yet they intend to retrench 400 employees.

She refuted claims that Board members in the minority are being populist and are grandstanding. They have a mandate to ensure that SABC is self-sustaining. With a projected loss of R500 million for this financial year, a renewed focus needs to be placed on correcting the SABC trajectory.

Board members are accountable to the employees, the South African public and the Shareholder. Where people are not skilled, the minority Board members have suggested that they should reskill these individuals. More alternatives needed to be found and employees should be consulted on these matters.

More options on how to bring in savings needed to be explored as well. This would ensure that staff personnel could be retained, whilst delivering on the SABC mandate. Presently, SABC has struggled to procure because of the lack of supply chain management (SCM) staff. She suggested that procurement could be postponed, to ensure that the matter is solved.

The Board needed to listen to the various voices emanating from the public, political parties and stakeholders.

Cost-cutting measures, such as salary cuts should also be considered. She had engaged with some staff members and many of the expressed comfort in having their salaries cut. Salary cuts for the Board and the Executive should also be considered. Board members in the minority did not want to have a legacy of being part of a leadership that doomed the SABC.

She recommended that the Board forms a special committee to attend to this matter. This should include the Executive.

The staff has communicated that they intend on going on a broadcasting blackout if the matter is not resolved within 48 hours. This would spiral SABC further into financial difficulty.

On the point raised by Ms van Damme about her, Ms Mohlala said that this input had worried her, as it seemed that Ms van Damme had been attacking black women. In her submission, the alleged attacks were directed at three black women: the Minister, the Deputy Minister and her. In a previous tweet Ms van Damme had tweeted that she was a toxic figure on the Board.

Ms van Damme interjected and said that the Deputy Chairperson had just accused her of racism.

The Chairperson asked that she elaborate on that point.

Ms van Damme said that Ms Mohlala had chosen to hide behind the fact that she is a black women instead of accepting that she is incompetent.

Mr Molala asked that the Members allow the Deputy Chairperson to conclude her response.

Ms Majozi said that the Committee could not discuss matters raised on social media platforms. Members could only deal with issues that emanate in the meeting.

The Chairperson disagreed with this point and said that if a matter taken from social media was relevant, the Committee could discuss it.

Ms Mohlala said that if Ms van Damme cared about the issues plaguing SABC she should have addressed the systematic and ongoing bullying of SABC staff.

On the allegation that she had breached the law and code of conduct of SABC, she said that she had a democratic right to voice her opinions and to do so without fear. She voiced her displeasure that a public representative had ‘threatened’ her by stating that she would ensure she is held accountable. She discouraged Members of Parliament from abusing individuals in public office. Her conduct had not breached any laws.

Continuing on the same matter, Ms Mohlala said it was interesting that Ms van Damme had presented a point that was made by a Board member in a WhatsApp conversation. She was willing to read the message out to the Committee if required.

SABC Board Member Markowitz
Mr Michael Markowitz, SABC Board member, said that the Deputy Chairperson had made allegations that were unfounded. He had not shared anything from the WhatsApp group with anyone. When he and the other Board members were appointed, their mandate was to ensure that the challenges at the SABC would be solved.

He disagrees with the characterisation of facts by the Deputy Chairperson. While he acknowledged that she had the constitutional right to voice her opinions, the Board is subject to very strict governance arrangements. Losing a vote in the Board did not mean that board members on the opposing side were permitted to breach board etiquette and criticise their colleagues. He does not believe that the right to freedom of expression trumps board etiquette. If it did, this would cause the board to collapse. In the Zondo Commission, it has been shown how lawful and valid resolutions taken by various SOE boards had been subverted because other people did not agree with them.

The SABC has been technically insolvent for the past two years. As company directors, the Board members had a fiduciary duty to find ways to sustain the organisation without affecting the cost base. Currently, the broadcaster does not have a sustainable cost base.

If it were true that the Board had not followed due process, as alleged by the unions, factual details should be provided. The Labour Relations Act permits that if an employer needs to retrench for operational reasons, they need to follow a process – which the SABC leadership had. He had not heard factual details on the allegations made both in and outside the Committee.

He defined the retrenchment process as tragic, as honest employees would have to lose their jobs because of years of malfeasance by the previous SABC leadership. It was unfair that the current Board had been blamed for the mistakes made by previous boards. However, the Board was adamant that it had make tough decisions. Several other SOE boards had not taken tough decisions and that had led to a downward spiral. The Board has to take leadership when making its decisions. When a decision is made, it is a collective decision. There is no minority and majority view: it is only the view of the Board.

When the new SABC Board was appointed, it had to appoint a highly competent management team. This management team is the best and most competent team in any enterprise in the country currently.

On the question about Board oversight, Mr Markowitz replied that the Board has to trust that the management team has the capability to implement Board resolutions. It is important to separate oversight from the operational responsibilities within SABC.

There is no other lawful way to retrench individuals in this country other than utilising S189. The Board has consulted, through the management team, for over 120 days with the unions. It has had 16 engagements and presented several documents to the unions. Eventually the management team decided this was the time to implement the resolution. He believed that if boards are to succeed in the country, there needs to be trust that the board has applied itself to do the right thing when taking a resolution. There also had be greater belief in the abilities of the management team.

It has been difficult to attract the right talent to boards when board members are treated in the manner in which they have been in this scenario. The Board has tried look at all available options but with much of the finances servicing the wage bill, instead of content production, they had no other options. Many investors will look at how the SABC handles this and will use it as a barometer on how leadership in other SOEs will deal with similar matters. The Board did not seek further bailouts. He urged the Members to trust the Board to turnaround the matter.

SABC Board Member Papayya
Ms Mary Papayya, SABC Board member, said that after the Deputy Chairperson went public, a meeting was set by the Board and the staff were invited. She expressed the hope that that meeting takes into consideration the concerns of everyone involved, particularly the staff, who are important to the turnaround strategy. Board meetings had been cancelled until 2021 but the visuals of the traumatised staff had prompted the Board to take action. She suggested that the leadership should learn to listen to other voices. When she was appointed as a Board member, she made sure that she would represent the voices of all South Africans. Whilst the board had taken a resolution, it is still important to look at viable alternatives, given the circumstances.

On role the Board plays in the SABC public service mandate, Ms Papayya replied that it has to be an efficient board, that is enabled, that has leadership, that recognises the diversity of voices and is agile. She was pleased with the Committee’s criticism and said that this would be used in future to improve on the inconsistencies. The Board would ensure that it has more meetings with the Shareholder.

The Board would also ensure that it provides the necessary support to affected staff. It could not allow the core business of SABC, which is news and editorial, to have a blackout. The Board needed to ensure it takes into consideration all input provided by the staff in the planned meeting. The public requires that the SABC stayed on air, and the Board would ensure that it does.

A hearing on the action taken by the news division staff should take place, to ensure that their views are heard. The Board might not take pleasure in what was displayed; however, their action represented a form of engagement, which is pleasing. The Board embraced democratic principles and did not want to return its authoritarian past.

On creative strategies SABC could consider, she replied that one would have to look at the classical versus non-traditional revenue opportunities. In addition, it could look at digital being used as a platform to raise revenue. There has been improvement in that regard. The Board ensures that it asks the right questions and that it also provides oversight over implementation.

On the fiduciary duty of the Board, it was important that the Board note the role of the board in how SABC had landed in this mess. It had to look at who should be held accountable for what has happened to SABC over the years.

On the allegations of misleading staff and unions, Ms Papayya replied that the Board had to consider how to engage when it decides to begin the process of engagement. The legislation mandates that the broadcaster should engage in common purpose, in a transparent and sincere manner. When executing a decision, it required the buy-in of all affected/relevant stakeholders. Board members who were appointed in 2019 brought fresh ideas. They assisted in preparing a turnaround strategy, through the Portfolio Committee, that would comfort Treasury in providing a bailout to allow SABC to pay its debtors and to implement digitalisation. Engagements with the Shareholder will take entity closer to the latter.

The Board was proud that independent parties were pleased with the broadcaster’s coverage of the 2019 elections. This quality work had regained the public trust.

Prior to the resolution to follow S189, the Board illustrated that they could work as a collective unit. However, the S189 resolution had fractured the Board. These divisions needed to be mended. It is the task of the Chairperson to guide the members. Women on the Board felt that their voices were not heard. They felt as if they were treated as second class citizens by their male colleagues to the extent that they called for a gender sensitivity workshop which would take place in January 2021.

The SABC Board has praised the Executive where it has seen improvement.

On the skills audit, she replied that the Board had not seen the SABC departmental structures. The Executives need to brief the Board on each department and how they will fill each. She was proud that the minority board members had the courage to take on the majority and to illustrate that there are alternatives to this matter. She agreed that they should look at other options such as salary reductions.

She did not like the idea of linking the provinces. People in Kwa-Zulu Natal would not want to lose their autonomy as a region of the public broadcaster to the Western Cape.

The Board had met with the Shareholder the previous night and had taken note of their concerns. It had also taken note of the input from this meeting and the opinions from the broader public and the unions. In the planned meeting, they would look to find ways to fill in the gaps.

Ms Van Damme said she was concerned that the Committee had permitted the Board to present the two separate factions to the public. She suggested that the Committee should for the different factions to cast aspersions against one another, as this was not what they were appointed for. that this was a representation of two factions in SABC, which was not what they were appointed for.

The Chairperson noted her suggestion; however, the Committee had agreed in the earlier meeting, to provide space for all Board members to voice their concerns. This exercise had also assisted the Committee in understanding the issues facing the Board and how to deal with these in future.

SABC Board Member Mohuba
Mr Dinkwanyane Mohuba, SABC Board member, said that he felt uncomfortable with the idea that his colleagues framed the two factions as the Board members appointed in 2018 and those appointed in 2019. This characterisation did not enhance the ability of SABC to improve its sustainability. He assured the Committee that there is no faction in the Board. There are divergent views; however, there is only one Board and the majority prevails. In this matter, they are dealing with the lives of people at SABC, who have dedicated their lives to the sustainability of SABC. When the Board considered the option of retrenchment, it contemplated how it could make the process easier for the affected employees.

He refuted claims that the bailout money had been irregularly spent. When it received the money, the Board ensured that the bailout should not be utilised for anything other than SABC functions and they entrusted the Executive with this task. There are documents that prove that the allegations were not true. He asked the Committee to follow-up on the allegations that the bailout money had been wrongly spent.

During the meeting with the Shareholder, both parties agreed that this was a difficult decision to take. In the meeting an impression was created that there had been no communication between the Department and the SABC Executive. The Board then asked the Executive to provide documents that indicate if there had been meetings where the Shareholder was briefed on the S189 process. He asked that SABC management provide the Committee with the minutes of all those meetings SABC management had with the Department. Evidence needs to be provided to substantiate the allegations that there has been no communication from SABC. He asked to be provided with factual details that showed that the retrenchment decision did not follow due process.

Explaining why the Board meetings had been cancelled for the rest of 2021, he had written a letter to his colleagues stating that if meetings were organised every week, the Executive would not be able to execute its tasks. The Board cannot be involved in operational matters. It should only focus on its oversight mandate.

Mr Mohuba emphasised that Board members should follow board etiquette and the board charter.

When the Target Operating Model (TOM) was presented to the board, there was an agreement that the Human Resources Board Committee would monitor the implementation of the process.

There were two areas of the SABC departmental structure that the Board was not comfortable with. First, it was not comfortable with the supply chain management in SABC, as it only contained managers but no one to report to them. The Chief Financial Officer had agreed to benchmark with other SOEs and would return with a report. The second area was duplication in HR. In this case, the Board had to deal with the legacy of people appointed to positions without those positions being budgeted for. The Board has complied with the mandate provided by Parliament, the Public Protector and Parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee recommendations as well as Treasury's.

He pleaded with Board members to end the divisions and to enter into the meeting tomorrow as a unit. It was not true that the new Board members had pushed the other Board members out. There was no animosity between the Board members, only divergent views. Leaking of critical decisions and resolutions made by the Board, to the media, was not helpful. He asked Board members to desist from doing so.

SABC Board Member Patel
Ms Jasmina Patel, SABC Board member, indicated that as Chair of the Audit and Risk Board Committee, she would elaborate on the poor financial health of SABC. The  Auditor General  report for the 2019-20 financial year illustrated that SABC incurred a net loss of R511 million and a negative cash flow of operations, amounting to R1.2 billion. The Board was concerned that SABC would not be able to continue when operational expenditure exceeds revenue. The PFMA requires that SOEs generate sufficient financial resources from their operations to meet their obligations. This is to ensure that they are not dependent on financial support provided by the government and that they should be self-sustainable.

Since March 2020, there has been a significant drop in marketing revenue, which was due to the lockdown and the dire economic conditions. This has affected SABC funding of operations and its ability to meet its expenses. Advertising revenue is down to R468 million in Q2 of this current financial year. This is R192 million less than the previous financial year. The fact that SABC is struggling to generate this revenue meant that it needed look at further cost-containment measures. Prior to invoking S189, the Audit and Risk Board Committee was briefed by management on cost-containment measures and that management had exhausted means of cost containment. Management informed the Board Committee that should SABC not contain costs and not retrench employees; it would have to file for business rescue. The leadership had the responsibility to ensure that SABC is there to serve for generations to come. This requires taking tough decisions like S189.

When the TOM was first submitted, the HR Board Committee scrutinised the model and sent it back to management to address the matters highlighted. Once it returned, it received further scrutiny. The HR Board Committee  members ensured that all its recommendations had been factored in. They then recommended TOM to the Board after applying their minds.

SABC Chief Operations Officer response
Mr Ian Plaatjes, SABC COO,  indicated that prior to the S189 process, management was mandated by the Board to engage with the unions to cancel the planned salary increases for this financial year. Not only did unions turn that down, but they threatened legal action. They then initiated the CCMA process and16 sessions were conducted over a four-month period. The SABC leadership did not merely send retrenchment letters. Notice of retrenchment was made clear five months before. The CCMA concluded that all the parties failed to reach a consensus and that each reserves their right. From the union’s perspective, it was their right to interdict the process. In fact, four months ago they had threatened to interdict the process. If there had been a case to do so, then they would have done so. This proved that the process was above book.

The 400 employees were issued letters that informed that there had been a duplication of roles and that their positions were redundant. However, they could contend for the 170 vacant positions or occupy positions if other employees retired early.

He refuted the statement that SABC generated most of its profit from the newsroom. The covering of news is an unfunded mandate and is actually a loss-making entity. This mandate costs SABC R800 million. It is a critical mandate that SABC takes seriously; and the leadership have all the intentions to maintain the high standards of the newsroom.

Mr Plaatjes said it was not true that SABC was not supporting the DDT strategy. There are more SABC channels on the DDT platform than there are on their linear platforms. On its linear platforms, it had only SABC 1, 2 and 3. On the DDT platform, it had SABC 1, 2, 3, the Education and the Sports channel. Due to SABC being forced to remain on analogue, there are only 500 000 households where the DDT platform has been rolled out, over the past ten years. There are currently 4.5 million households on analogue and without DDT. It is outside the mandate of SABC to roll out the set-top boxes.

He denied that he had previously mentioned that the leadership had not engaged with the unions because they did not form part of the leadership. The SABC has a good relationship with the unions and would continue to have one. What he said was that because there is not a 50 +1 vote process, in S189, so they had to take into account employees who are not unionised members. They then made provision for those employees to be represented by people they selected.

He stressed that the leadership was not closing the Umhlobo office in the Eastern Cape. As there were a duplication of roles there, they had to retrench some employees stationed in that office.

Management’s decision to enact retrenchments was based on Treasury’s precondition and a Board resolution.

Both the leadership of Sentech and SABC have a good relationship. It would not be beneficial to draw too many lessons from Sentech as it has only 300 employees – whereas SABC has over 3000. Further, Sentech receives some of its revenue from SABC. Recently, Sentech had asked SABC to resend the request for a R500 million reduction, which they had done. Sentech indicated that it would revert to them in the following week. He expressed hope that this would go towards securing jobs at SABC.

On Ms Papayya’s comments, his remark that SABC would have to become an eNCA-lite in the face of a blackout was made in jest. He had made these comments to the Group Executive of News in a closed meeting. He was firstly surprised that Ms Papayya had obtained this information and that she then had decided to raise it in a public forum, as if it were true and valid. When he engaged the newsroom, he was informed by them that they had direct access to a Board member, from whom they received information. The purpose of that meeting was to ensure that a robust plan that prevented a blackout scenario was developed.

He refuted the claim that the decision to implement the S189 had split the Board. There had always been leaks from the SABC Board to the Daily Sun.

It was not true that contingency plans were not in place in the case of a blackout. Contingency plans were shared with the Department.

Both the Executive and the Portfolio Committee had done a fantastic job in developing the editorial policy at SABC. The policy was intended to prevent Executives from interfering in editorial matters and it does so successfully. Mitigating actions would be put in place to prevent incidents, such as the news team unlawfully capturing the news platform, from occurring in the future.

There had been extensive sessions between the Board and its Subcommittees on the implementation of the TOM. There had never been an indication that the collapsing of KZN and Western Cape into one office would occur. Only the Northern Cape and the Free State had been combined, and this had been in operation for just over a year.

Group Executive: Human Resources response
Mr Mojaki Mosia, SABC GE: Human Resources, said that he would explain how the S189 process would unfold from here on.

He explained they are not considering natural attrition because SABC staff turnover is only just below 5%. The majority of it is due to retirement. Where there are voluntary resignations, the majority of these are from the core critical functions. Natural attrition would not address the redundancies especially in support functions. The average experience of an SABC employee is just above 10 years. If they followed a natural attrition process, they would not be able to shift to the newly approved structure. This structure envisages that in the ratio of total staff between support and core, the majority of them would come from core. Utilising natural attrition would mean that this would only be realised in eight years.

There were several options that management had considered. They looked at the SABC payroll and focused on the big four cost drivers. One was the annual increase that is provided – which is the largest contributor. There are three specific benefits: first is annual leave. Management has proposed to reduce annual leave from 35 days to 28 days. This is subject to an agreement with the unions as leave is a condition of service. Management proposed that sick leave is reduced and they adopt the Basic Conditions of Employment Act which states only 30 sick days per three-year cycle should be provided. This was also subject to further engagement with labour. Management proposed a salary freeze for three years, or until they break even. If all interventions are supported, they were confident they would be able to reduce the number of people affected beyond the 400 earmarked to be retrenched.

It was not possible to shift the ratio of staff from support to the core, without migrating to the newly approved operational structure. It is for that reason they have issued redundancy letters. The intent is for employees to know that in accordance with the approved final structure, their positions are redundant and those affected should apply for alternative positions. They have sent letters to individuals occupying jobs where they have not been placed or were there has been a surplus. To minimise the total number of employees affected, they had also offered early retirement and voluntary severance packages to staff. Early retirement is a voluntary process and certain employees have been encouraged to consider it – as their positions are not redundant. Their acceptance of the package would create additional space for the retrenched employees.

The leadership does want to advertise the vacant positions internally. Before they issued the S189 notice, they had put a moratorium on all positions, even those that were critical for the organisation. In addition, a moratorium was placed on vacancies found in the new structure. There are 170 of these positions. If all the affected employees are placed into these positions, it would reduce the number of retrenchments to 230. Additionally, if some employees accept the early retirement or voluntary severance package, the number would be reduced further.

Once they had finalised the matching and placing of the successful candidates, they would revert to the Board and ask for advice on how to assist the employees that were not placed.

The skills audit was valid and reliable. Further, the methodology used was sound. He asked for the unions to substantiate their allegations with facts that it was not sound. The results of the skills audit would be used to pool the individuals who will not be placed. Their current task is to look at employee competencies and find ways where it can both enhance and capacitate them. This is subject to the employees being willing and able.

They have proposed that the retrenchment process should be finalised by March 2021, which would give the affected employees enough time to prepare.

There was no ruling from the CCMA. They had invited the CCMA from the beginning to facilitate the process. The SABC had received several written submissions but none of them deal with how to address the redundancies so that they reduce the total cost of compensation to a reasonable ratio – amounting to a R600 million reduction. If there are recommendations from Members, they would consider them. There is only one condition when it comes to conditions of service, which is that non-unionised members, stakeholders and unions would all have to agree. The SABC cannot decide unilaterally to make changes, otherwise it would have a dispute. The only change that is guaranteed is the annual salary increase freeze for the next three years.

The SABC expects that by 31 December, it would have finalised the deployment into the new structure – as per the commitment made to the Board. If they finish this process earlier, they will share the final number.

SABC Chief Financial Officer response
Ms Yolande van Biljoen, SABC CFO,  explained that when the  Auditor General  referred to 99% of fruitless expenditure, it was in reference to the interest incurred when SABC was unable to settle its obligations in time in the first six months of the year. The broadcaster would share more detail on this when the annual report is presented. There are numerous plans to address this.

The bailout funds have not been used for legal fees. To ensure this, the bailout report is scrutinised every month by management.

The completeness of the expenditure report is a concern for both SABC and the  Auditor General . The expectation is that SABC is able to verify 100% of the transactions to confirm if irregular expenditure was incurred or not. There are 10 000 transactions performed per month and each one needs to be verified, investigated and confirmed, to establish if its irregular or not. They made tremendous strides this financial year, but it is a significant task.

The  Auditor General  indicated that there is effective leadership at SABC, but there are still concerns. There has been improvement in the daily and monthly controls. They were previously not in a good position as a result of the inability to test the full population of transactions for irregular expenditure. The  Auditor General  has indicated that SABC has regressed in its review and monitoring of compliance. However, there has been improvement in both risk management and effective leadership.

SABC Head of Legal Services response
Adv Nthutuzelo Vanara, Head of Legal Services at SABC, replied that the broadcaster had previously provided a detailed report to the Committee which broke down the legal costs for the last five years. It listed each legal matter and the amount paid. This report has been served to the Board, Group Exco and the Audit and Risk Committee for purposes of oversight and accountability. It indicated that the servicing of legal costs is a historical challenge; however, SABC has taken steps to reduce the costs. As a result of the strategies implemented in the previous financial year, there has been improvement. It was not where they want it to be, but they were hopeful that the strategy will yield positive results.

The overall percentage of budget for legal services stood at 0.4% in 2019/20. This indicates that it represents a small factor in the current financial challenges the SABC is facing. However, it remains a cause for concern and the Board has asked management to reduce the costs. The Board has also requested a report on this matter.

He replied that oversight is provided by the Board and the Executives cannot do as they please with the public funds. Hence they have accounted to the Committee today. They are required to justify the decisions they make.

On the reference to the employee who was fired, Adv Vanara replied that there was a court ruling and subsequent engagements between the parties. Those engagements resulted in a court order being issued last week, which directed that the employee return to her position in Bloemfontein. He could not get into the details of the matter to preserve the integrity of that process. However, the Board has been thoroughly briefed on the matter.

The use of a skills audit as the criteria in a S189 process has been ruled as unlawful and unfair by the courts. Its use tends to disadvantage employees when used as the criteria. Specifically, employees who can be appointed to positions with developmental plans in place.

He confirmed that the bailout funds had not been used to cover litigation costs.

SABC CEO response
Mr Mxakwe replied that the Executives act on approved Board resolutions. The process of retrenchment had been delayed for over two years. In fact, it should have taken place in 2009. For SABC to be run sustainably and for it to fulfil the unfunded mandate, tough decisions need to be taken. Due to the large wage bill, SABC could not invest in marketing, content and it could not pay its electricity bills. If they were to withdraw this process, there would need to be a commitment from government that there would be an allocation of R1 billion per annum towards the unfunded mandate.

Deputy Minister and Minister closing remarks
Deputy Minister Kekana said the Department noted the comments made by the Members. The engagements between the Department, Sentech and ICASA represented attempts to assist SABC. After the engagements, the Department gave each entity 14 days to provide progress reports on the various items discussed. Members should appreciate the efforts made by the Department. She was pleased that the Board would be sitting the following day. The Department would invite the SABC Board and ICASA and Sentech to the meeting that would take place the following week.

Minister Stella Ndabeni-Abrahams thanked all the Members for their contributions during the course of the meeting. She was also pleased that the Board would be meeting the following day. She would await the outcome of the meeting, before taking any further decisions on the matter. This matter required that all involved look to serve the interests of the public. All the challenges SABC faced are shared, hence the Shareholder and the Committee needed to be involved.

All stakeholders should look to minimise job losses. Those that are retrenched would have no further income and eventually would become a burden on the state. She clarified that the skills audit was done to gain an understanding on the capabilities of the SABC staff. It should not be mistaken for qualification verification.

She encouraged SABC to look to investing in methods that would prepare it for the digital migration, which would add other channels to SABC. In doing so, SABC should consider the skills it required and the skills it had in the organisation. Currently, the digital migration does not look at the unsubsidised market. There are nine million households that form part of the unsubsidised market, which provides an opportunity for SABC when the process is finalised. A growth plan has been established for SABC, and the leadership should continue working on ways to implement the solutions provided. This required the assistance of the relevant stakeholders. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that these changes occur at SABC.

Further comments
The Chairperson said he would provide a summary of the proceedings at the end of the meeting.

Ms Van Damme described her experience at the meeting as torturous. However, she was pleased to hear a calmer and more collaborative tone from both the Deputy Minister and the Minister. She requested that in the next meeting, the Board members speak with one voice. It is not the role of the Committee to sort the challenges within the Board. If Board members had grievances, they should write to the appointing authority. They should refrain from going on TV to settle their differences. The Deputy Chairperson had breached the PFMA and the Board Charter and that would be taken up.

She asked that in the next meeting SABC come with a presentation on how they had dealt with the retrenchments.

Ms S Xego (ANC) appreciated that the Committee invited the full Board complement. Although it was not pleasant to hear the divergent opinions, it was important to know that when a decision was taken, there were divergent views. She was not pleased that retrenchments are taking place.

She asked if the information mentioned during the meeting had been presented to the unions. If so, what had been their response. She advised that once they had made a final decision, they should take the Shareholder into confidence.

Ms Khubehka agreed. She asked the Board to give the Shareholder the space to provide interventions on the matter, that would assist with finding a solution. In the future, all Board members should respect Board resolutions/decisions.

Mr Molala said that there has been no movement on the matter, during the course of the meeting. The view of SABC leadership is that they will continue with S189, whilst the Members maintained that they did not agree with the resolution. He requested that they go back and look at viable alternatives. However, if they were firm in their decision, they should inform the Committee. All the responses provided by SABC were responses provided in the previous meeting.

He was pleased to have met the Board members and that the Committee now knew how to deal with issues plaguing the Board going forward. He encouraged them to work together for the good of the organisation.

He also suggested that the Committee should meet and assess all its previous engagements with SABC – and to find areas where it can assist.

Ms Majozi said that all that was left was for SABC leadership to take a final decision on the matter. She suggested that the Shareholder and the Board should meet to find out if there are alternative methods to deal with this matter. Whatever decision is taken, the Committee should support it. Members should not set a precedent of allowing people to settle their differences in the Committee.

Ms Faku stated that the matter required all parties to be calm during the process. It was the responsibility of the Stakeholder to attend to the matter. It would be advisable for the Board to engage with the Stakeholder before announcing its final decision. She agreed that the Committee should have an engagement on challenges SABC faced. As an entity of government, it had the means to engage with DTT.

She sent her sympathies to the SABC employees and reiterated that the Members stood resolute against the retrenchment process.

Closing remarks
The Chairperson remarked that the Committee does indeed acknowledge that many of the challenges SABC is faced with are historical, which was important to note. These had been revealed by reports such as the Public Protector report.

It was also important to note the role that the Shareholder played in matters affecting the public broadcaster. All alternatives must be looked at and discussions between the relevant entities must continue with the aim of saving SABC.

He agreed with the Minister that there should be an interest in the SABC gaining the nine million households that form part of the unsubsidised digital migration market.

A united leadership is required to turnaround SABC. There should be respect for the different talents and input provided by the various Board members. It was their duty to stabilise SABC and not the Committee’s. He advised that when making decisions, all due process must be followed, and all stakeholders should be consulted.

He requested that in its meeting with SABC staff, the Board should consider that certainty had to be provided to the employees before the end of the year. If retrenchment is the final decision, it must be accepted but only if it is shown that all other alternatives had been exhausted.

The Committee appreciated that after their meeting with the Minister, SABC leadership had treated the matter with urgency and the Members were able to put trust in them.

Once the consultations with SABC had concluded, the Committee would meet to look at broader interventions that could be provided to assist SABC, particularly on legislation.

The meeting was adjourned.