SABC: Unions & Editorial Forum response; Closed session

This premium content has been made freely available

Communications and Digital Technologies

28 October 2020
Chairperson: Mr B Maneli (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

20 Oct 2020

SABC on skills audit; legal & signal distribution costs; contracts; Department input; Union & Editorial Forum concerns

In a virtual meeting, the Committee heard responses from the SABC on matters previously raised by the Committee. These matters related to factual disputes contested by stakeholders; trend analysis of staff expenditure; money trail for litigations, including the number of cases won and lost; as well as the relevance of the skills audit to Section 189 of the Labour Relations Act process.

Members of the Committee asked further questions related to strategies for the financial viability and sustainability of the SABC; the issue of sabotage against the President through the airing of a wrong clip, as well as the rationale for the harsh disciplinary methods used in addressing the matter; concerns around the movement from traditional television to streaming services, and the support given by the Department of Communications to actualise this goal; the relevance of the skills audit report in capturing competencies of job profiles; the factors responsible for the internal incapacity experienced in the legal unit of SABC; plans put in place to strengthen the Employees Relations Unit; progress on negotiations with stakeholders; allowing the editorial forum to engage with the Committee whenever the need arises; and the recognition of prior learning in place of university degrees, to apply for positions.

The second part of the meeting was deemed commercially sensitive, and closed to the public

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed Committee Members. The meeting was categorised into two parts. The first part of the meeting was open to the public. It was aimed at granting the Board of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) the opportunity to reply to outstanding questions, raised by the Committee the previous week. Members were given the opportunity to ask follow-up questions and get clarity from the SABC in the first session of the meeting.

The second part of the meeting was deemed commercially sensitive, and closed to the public.

In compliance with Rule 84 of the National Assembly Rules, and based on the application made to Parliament, duly approved by the Speaker, the Committee were given details of what was considered ‘commercially sensitive’ to the public, and engaged accordingly.

The Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies was at the launch of projects, as a continuation of the OR Tambo celebrations in the country, and sent apologies. The Deputy Minister was absent due to ill-health, and also sent apologies.

Ms P Van Damme (DA) raised an objection to the apology sent by the Minister. This was the second meeting in a row the Minister was absent from. In Ms Van Damme’s opinion, the excuse given for the Minister’s absence was not sufficient enough. The Minister was not absolutely required to be present at the celebrations, and particularly not when important matters are discussed in her portfolio. She asked the Committee to take note of the objection raised against the unsatisfactory reason for the Minister’s absence from the meeting.

The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretary if there were other apologies. There were no further apologies.

The Chairperson said Ms Van Damme’s objection is noted. However, it was on record, the Minister was to represent the President at some of the programmes. Nevertheless, the objection was valid and the Portfolio Committee’s political leadership required being able to deal with entities which report to it, while playing its oversight role. The officials present from the Department of Communications, would also be able to relay the objection to the Minister.

Response by the SABC to Committee questions

Ms Nomvuyiso Batyi, Acting Director General (ADG), Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT), said the SABC would respond to specific questions posed by the Committee in a confidential manner. Pertinent issues were previously raised which need urgent attention. These issues include revenue; utilisation of the bailout with regard to content acquisitions; and turnaround time on investment after acquiring content. Regarding turnaround time on investment, it used to take 12 to 18 months for SABC to realise its return on investment after acquiring content. These turnaround times are reduced. There were no doubts the broadcasting sector was affected by the pandemic.

The ADG highlighted the issue of how money from content acquisition was spent so far. The bulk of the money was disbursed to the Western Cape and Gauteng. This observation was not aimed at casting aspersions on the SABC, nor should the SABC view the highlighted issue in a negative light. The Department believes the disbursements to these two provinces could be based on convenience because of COVID19.

The Department was also concerned about the sustainability of the SABC, especially regarding the shift of audiences from traditional television to other devices. To help develop strategies which would make SABC thrive, conversations around the viability of SABC channels, as well as the rationale behind distribution of resources was necessary. The Department will continue to engage constructively with the SABC, as it did in the past, carrying out oversight functions. As published in the Department’s audio-visual paper, the goal is to ensure the broadcasting sector thrives.

The Chairperson asked the SABC to proceed with responses to questions.

Mr Bongumusa Makhathini, Chairperson: SABC Board, introduced other SABC board members. He said a lot of the clarity seeking questions posed to the SABC was addressed in the document sent to the Committee on 14 August 2020.

Adv Ntuthuzelo Vanara, Head: Legal Services and Acting Group Executive (AGE): Governance and Assurance, SABC, said the SABC already responded to most of the legal questions in its last engagement with the Committee. To save time and to enable Members to ask clarity seeking questions on responses, it will not repeat responses already given. The Committee raised quite a number of concerns on legal costs, and the Board shared the same sentiment. For this reason, the Board was tasked with developing a strategy to reduce legal costs.

Adv Vanara explained the driving factors responsible for escalating legal costs. The role of an internal legal department within the organisation was explained at the last committee meeting. An internal resource support business, functions through three different components. These are, drafting legal opinions or business advice; drafting legal documents such as contracts in the case of Parliament; and litigation.

Once the internal capacity of the organisation fails to competently discharge these three components, it tends to contribute to the escalation of fees for legal costs. For instance, if the internal resource of an organisation does not write legal opinions when the legal guidance is needed, such organisation has to go outside to get contracts drafted, and this requires paying a service provider, which in turn contributes to legal costs.

Managing litigation, though complex, helps to reduce these legal costs. In the last meeting, SABC took the Committee through the process it embarks on to reduce costs related to litigation. The Corporation showed a graph demonstrating the progress achieved so far, since the introduction of various measures, which proved effective. The Corporation came before Parliament to account for, and discharge, its constitutional obligation.

In some instances, the decisions accounted for were decisions taken by SABC’s predecessors. In law, SABC acted as a successor-in-time, and was obliged to explain these previously made decisions to the committee. In other words, the Corporation inherited some challenges, and developed strategies to address these challenges. By all indications, these strategies demonstrated the SABC was working and succeeding.

The second issue relating to cost pertains to if the organisation derived value for money from litigations, or not. Adv Vanara noted, since joining the corporation, there was no time the SABC went to court without a clear understanding of why it was in court, and the objective to be achieved from going to court.

Although the SABC could not point to billions lost to the Corporation, it could certainly point to positives which mitigated expenses for the corporation. A case in point was the issue of irregularly awarded contracts. Acting in compliance with the Rule of Law, the SABC did not take the law into its hands because a wrong was committed against it. The law required the Corporation to approach a competent court to remove such irregularity. This costs money.

It was a necessary intervention. It helped prevent instances where the SABC is not able to give assurances to the Committee and other entities it is accountable to. The statement refers to assurances regarding if value for money was achieved, where a non-competitive process was deployed to identify and select service providers.

Contracts like this were set aside. The Constitutional Court ruling meant any service provider whose service was irregularly acquired is not entitled to the full value of the contract. If for example, a service provider charged SABC R50 million to render a particular service through an irregularly acquired contract, when the service provider set expenditures for overheads at R30 million, in law the service provider is not entitled to compensation beyond the R30 million.

There were also instances where SABC went to court as litigants and were not pleased with the outcome of the judgment. In such instances, the SABC does not recklessly come to a decision to appeal a judgement. It considers the judgment in the light of evidence, and considers the circumstances. A case in point was when the SABC had a dispute with a service provider, and the Court ruled in favour of the service provider in a dispute related to the termination of an irregularly awarded contract. Although the court agreed the contract was indeed an irregularly awarded one and should be set aside on this ground, it ruled the service provider should be entitled to the full benefit of the contract. The SABC did not hurry to appeal the judgment.

It obeyed the order to resolve the issue through arbitration. The arbitration process itself costs money, and being mindful of this, SABC avoided the arbitration process by initiating settlement discussions with the service provider. When the service provider proved difficult and unreasonable, SABC was left with no option but to join the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) to appeal the judgment. The judgment came out on appeal, ruling on the well-established principle of law, namely, a service provider which irregularly benefits from a contract is not entitled to the full benefit of the agreement.

There were many instances where parties to litigation came back after a careful consideration of the court decisions, agreeing and making proposals to the SABC. The SABC was currently sitting with, and interrogating, a R300 000 proposal from one of its service providers.

There was also recovery of money lost. In SABC and SIUs view, there were people who received bonuses which these people were not entitled to. Some defrauded the organisation through bursary schemes and were brought before court. Regrettably, when engaging in a litigious process, litigation dictates and assumes its own lifetime. The SABC was quite confident of the prospects of success in those matters. The SABC does not engage in litigation without thoroughly assessing the situation.

Regarding cases won and lost by the SABC, Adv Vanara said the SABC made a presentation to the Committee, indicating the number of cases won and lost.

The Committee moved on to responses to questions around the progress made on section 189, which the SABC embarked on, as well as the role of management engaging with the processes involved.

Dr Mojaki Mosia, SABC GE: HR, said management was very responsive to feedback, as requested by the Committee and other stakeholders.

The Committee asked SABC to go back and engage with various stakeholders, and this was done. The SABC has engaged with all stakeholders for the past four months. In those four months, 16 sessions took place, proving the willingness of SABC to engage with other stakeholders. Seven of those engagements were facilitated by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). Some stakeholders derailed the process for various reasons, and up until the seventh session, there was no progress made. No alternatives were submitted to address the concerns of proposed structure.

On the question surrounding the skills audit, and if its outcome was valid and reliable, Dr Mosia said it was. The methodology deployed to carry out the skills audit was confirmed as appropriate and acceptable. The SABC previously sent a report, including a 400-page skills audit report.

The report included a table showing the process by which external independent service providers were sourced, through SABCs supply chain process. It also showed the methodology followed by service providers. The service providers go through the job descriptions of SABC staff, to uplift different competencies already in those job descriptions.

From this, the service provider produced draft competency dictionaries, which went through a validation process where the service provider engaged with SABC to confirm if competencies were captured correctly. The respective dictionaries were approved by respective GEs of various divisions.

The service provider also requested an opportunity to engage with other stakeholders. This opportunity was granted and engagement took place with organised labour. Once engagements were completed, the service provider compiled a questionnaire derived from the competency dictionaries, which was used to collect data and produce the skills audit report.

Dr Mosia dismissed the perception created by Members of Parliament on different platforms, saying the skills audit was meant to capture everything about his own competencies. The skills audit intention was not to measure or confirm if he had the knowledge and skills contained in a Human Resources (HR) degree.

The intention was to capture the competencies reflected in every staff’s job profile. The audit was done based on the assumption each staff member had inherent minimum job requirements. For instance, a staff occupying a position which required a degree in HR, or finance, was expected to have the respective degrees. This explains why the methodology was designed to only use competencies in the job description.

Regarding if the skills audit should be used as part of Section 189, SABC previously said the deployment of staff into new positions, and new job profiles, has to happen first. It must happen before a consideration of the outcome of the skills audit can come to play.

When the skills audit was conducted, it was relative to the position which a staff occupied at the point in time in question. Referring to employees who may be affected, could only mean such employees were no longer holding the positions held when the audit was carried out.

Such employees were now displaced, or their positions were made redundant. Affected employees have to apply for newly available positions, after which any such application would be reported to management.

When the SABC was about to issue Section 189, management put a moratorium on all vacancies. This meant those whose vacancies were part of the newly proposed structures yet to be released, would have to compete with old employees interested in applying for the same vacancies. This was because the vacancies contained new positions which do not belong to anyone. Employees would also be allowed to apply for those vacancies because it was a promotional opportunity opened to anyone interested in applying for it.

Once these vacant positions are filled, SABC would check for those yet to be placed in any position, old or new. People in this category will fall under the final list of redundant employees.

SABC would consider if relative positions were still available; check the competencies of such people; and refer to the skills audit results to make a determination the gap. Once a gap is determined, SABC would invite such people to apply or express interest if the person would like to be considered for those positions. If the answer is yes, the person would be subjected to assessments, which may lead to appointments into various positions.

Ms Phathiswa Magopeni, Acting GE: Television and GE: News and Current Affairs, SABC, replied to the issue of sabotage, noting SABC did not mislead Parliament when it last responded to this matter. On the basis of the information initially gathered, there was an indication of an inherent problem in handling and processing the clip in question. The clip was ready for transmission, fully edited to the technical and editorial quality standards of the newsroom, almost an hour before the actual broadcast. But because the message was meant to be broadcast at the same time by all news media at 6:00 pm, it was communicated to the desk to wait.

At the time of the transmission, the rehearsal version was played instead of the processed clip. Upon conclusion of the internal investigation, which included a desk report on the incident, the implicated employees were charged and disciplined accordingly. Employees were charged as per the SABC disciplinary code, and on this basis, the most appropriate charges based on the outcome of the investigation were issued.

This included gross negligence and dereliction of duty. In total, four employees were involved. One of the employees was dismissed, one was served with a final written warning and is back at work, one employee was cleared and is also back at work, and one freelancer was unscheduled immediately after the incident.

From this process, one employee instituted a defamation case against the SABC, and the Corporation is defending the case. The Corporation believes any further comment on this matter could prejudice the SABCs ability to defend itself. The SABC still intends to furnish the Committee with a full report once the matter before Court is concluded, and court documents from both sides of the matter are provided.

Ms Yolande van Biljon, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), SABC, addressed the usage of the bailout and its utilisation in the past year. The Corporation applied for 3.2 billion, which was made up of three main categories; trade and other payables, content and long term traffics.

The Corporation received R2 billion on 31 October 2019, at which point it set out to determine in detail which item would qualify for the funding based on what was applied for in its grant application, as well as what the appropriations would capture regarding data.

All possible items constituting irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure were removed, including all legal fees. The SABC cleaned out every single line item which was uncertain. It ended up reporting against the main categories; each of which was included in a line item level report, which was submitted to the Committee. SABC has since been settling various items over the past 12 months.

A few payments remain outstanding for very specific reasons, such as if a there was a pending court case, with outstanding amounts yet to be settled.

A closer look at television (TV) content will show it required long term capital. SABC went through a very rigorous process to ensure R400 million was defined as a line item level to be applied towards content and capital.

There was a report which speaks to the content which was settled. The content was split according to registered offices. It could appear as a disproportionate focus on Cape Town in the Western Cape, and Gauteng, but this was only because of the registered offices. Forecasting is done every month and updated for coming months, to calculate expected amounts to be spent.

The SABC has to set budgets. It is a rigorous, slow process, to ensure proper spending of funds on specified projects, to take the organisation forward into a digital era.

The events of the last six months disrupted filming processes. It is not taking place at the pace SABC wanted. There was also quite an extensive internal process which business units who wish to have access to the funding must go through.

The Chairperson asked Members to pose follow-up questions.

Follow-up questions

Ms P Faku (ANC) asked Ms Magopeni to shed more light on the sabotage incident.

Ms P Van Damme (DA) referred to the DGs opening remarks. She noted concerns over the viability of the SABC. There was no mention regarding if the Department proposed solutions to help. It appears the Department and the SABC do not have a smooth relationship. The Department and SABC started working together, and she hoped the relationship would be better.

Still on the issue of viability, she noted some other issues were not addressed; issues such as those surrounding SENTECH. She was aware of discussions ongoing with the Deputy Minister on the Section 189 process which spoke to the viability of the SABC. Referring to the concerns expressed by the DG on the movement of people from traditional television to streaming services, she said this was a global phenomenon.

The SABC said it would launch streaming services in 2021. She asked what kind of support was provided by the Department to the SABC in this regard. The Committee should also be briefed on the processes involved, to hear any advice or concerns the Committee may have. She asked the Chairperson if this particular question was appropriate to be brought up at the current meeting.

The Chairperson said the SABC has to respond to the pending issues scheduled for the current meeting before responding to any other questions such as the one asked.

Addressing the GE of Human Resources, Ms Van Damme said there were indeed members of staff who had serious concerns, and had a right to appear before Parliament to raise those concerns.

She asked for clarity regarding if the GE of HR spoke for all members of staff. She was referring to his correction of the perception held by Committee Members on skills audit capturing all competencies of staff members.

She asked if this statement represents the views of other SABC staff members. If not, it should be corrected. This was because the Committee needs to know if other Committee Chairpersons should be involved, as it would be important for deliberations amongst Chairpersons after engagements on the skills audit is completed.

On the issue of sabotage, she said there were many conflicting stories about the incident. While it was understood the matter was subject to litigation, the SABC was asked to provide the papers from both parties for the Committee to have a look. This would assist with getting a clear perspective of the issues.

In her opinion, the approach taken by SABC to address the issue was tantamount to using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Since the SABC submitted airing the wrong clip was a mistake, an apology to the people of South Africa would have sufficed in addressing the issue. South Africans would understand and the matter would be resolved without going through any rigorous disciplinary process, which has now led to litigation costing SABC money. She asked for clarity on why SABCs response to the incident was so harsh.

Mr L Molala (ANC) directed his question at Adv Vanara. He recalled during the SABC’s last presentation, Adv Vanara said litigation was expensive, but was necessary for dealing with corruption. He placed emphasis on the incapacitated Employee Relationship Unit (ERU) in the SABC, yet the Corporation failed to see how this linked to the question asked by the Committee on who was responsible for initial litigation.

The Committee’s understanding was line managers were responsible for initial litigation at the level of the SABC, while the Employees Relations Unit was only there to guide and assist. Line managers should take responsibility. He asked what Adv Vanara has done since assuming office to solve the problem of incapacity; and asked if the Employees Relations Unit was strengthened further.

He agreed with the SABC on the need to only pursue litigation where necessary, to save costs. However, incidences of cases lost and continued pursuance of such cases through appeals to upper courts was brought to the fore. For example, where cases are lost at the level of CCMA, the SABC appeals to the Labour Courts, and if lost, it appeals further up again. The costs of these litigations should be borne by whoever is responsible for further pursuance and/or continuation of such cases. The SABC cannot afford to be engaging in so much litigation, while struggling with its finances. There is a need for a balance.

He highlighted the issue of the Skills Audit, which was stated as a non-prerequisite according to the law. He asked what plans were in place to develop criteria for identifying redundant staff, irrespective of this not being provided for in the Labour Relations Act.

Responding to GE of Human Resources, Mr Molala wanted to know if the GE of HR could confirm if the SABC worked out negotiations as claimed by other stakeholders. He asked if the negotiations are over or if there would be more negotiations, considering the GE of HR alleged the stakeholders were the cause of the delay. I listened and could not discern who was speaking and not sure of this.

He referred to the issue of the Skills Audit, which the Chairperson of the SABC Board and the GE: HR claimed was not a prerequisite to confirm competencies of staff, particularly the competencies for the HR position.

Mr Molala’s view was this statement was contradictory, as it means Dr Mosia was not necessarily bound by the same process he went through, completed, and has now said would be helpful going forward in developing a criteria to identify redundant staff. The SABC was asked to clarify this.

With regard to the clip, the SABC had two things to do, one of which was to apologise to South Africans for going on air to say the President was sabotaged. Even though the SABC claims two people were charged for dereliction of duty, the information the Committee has is different. There were also speculations surrounding the involvement of other people.

He agreed with Ms Van Damme on the need for SABC to provide the Committee with more details on the matter, to help with further deliberations, and to determine who was responsible for specific actions. This would also help to clear all allegations of the SABC lying to Parliament. Other ‘lies’ fed to Parliament need to be cleared.

He asked for clarity on the rationale of the SABC having numerous consultants and appointing a Public Relations (PR) company to oversee and deliver the Skills Audit. He said using many consultants would lead to incurring more expenses.

The Chairperson urged Members to restrict clarity seeking questions to only the matters discussed in the previous meeting, and for which the SABC was before the Committee to give responses. Other questions considered suited for the second part of the meeting should be held onto, until the closed meeting commences. Members had the opportunity to note down reflections which form part of the recommendations to be given to SABC during or at the end of the engagements.

Ms Faku agreed with Ms Van Damme regarding SABC not having to go through such rigorous process to regularise the sabotage. A statement of apology from the SABC to the country would have sufficed. She supported Mr Molala on the litigation being too many. Some issues did not require going to court, it could be dealt with internally.

The Chairperson of the SABC Board was asked to have conversations with the staff and board members, and this should be done with patience. The Board should also reconsider the methodology used, since it seems the current one in use was not working. The Board should come up with a strategy to bring everyone on board to achieve better results for the SABC. This would be particularly relevant for resolving the issue of sabotaging the President.

On the skills audit, she asked for clarity regarding if the recognition of prior learning would suffice in place of a degree for holding certain positions. Recognising the prior learning of a candidate might even be more than sufficient, as such candidate gained experience which may be better suited for certain vacant positions. Also, there could be instances where a person with a university degree could have the qualification required, but not the skills to properly function in a vacant role. She wanted to know if this methodology was really effective for the SABC.

On the issue of the dismissal of two people involved in the sabotage, Ms Faku asked why such hasty decisions were taken. This situation explained why the Department of Employment and Labour (DEL) was always getting involved in matters like this, where people are dismissed from work without due process being followed.

She asked for clarity, regarding if it was correct practice to give employees yet to be placed in new positions, an opportunity to apply for the remaining vacant positions, especially when those employees do not qualify for those positions.

She advised the SABC to work concurrently with DEL to have a better understanding of what each party wants in attaining a viable Corporation.

Mr T Gumbu (ANC) asked for clarity on why SABC employed external service providers to carry out the Skills Audit, and asked if it was due to internal incapacity.

Ms Z Majozi (IFP) said SABC should let the Committee know if there was a specific person who instituted the sabotage, and if not, the Corporation should issue a statement of apology. She said it would be out of order for the Committee to discuss matters still in court. The Committee would have to wait for the verdict of the Court, before discussions can take place on those matters. The other cases in court focused on operational matters. The Committee could not delve into operational matters, since it only plays an oversight role.

The Committee should wait for the court decision on the matter of the sabotage, before engaging further on it. The SABC was also asked to carry out a proper investigation to determine if it was an individual who was responsible for the sabotage, or if it was a technical fault which led to the entire issue. She asked the SABC to hasten its plans to resolve all pending issues, as it was dragging the Committee backwards.

On the matter relating to the editorial forum, and if it represented Ms Magopeni and the entire newsroom, Ms Magopeni said the impression given at the various times she met with the group for a number of issues, showed the newsroom was duly represented. There was no way to confirm if this was indeed the case, especially since the editorial forum was not a recognised structure. However, the editorial forum did not represent Ms Magopeni and cannot represent her. By virtue of her responsibilities as the accounting journalist, she accounts to the newsroom and the principal. She could therefore, not be represented by the forum, as this would change the nature of her job.

On the issue of the sabotage, it was said SABC issued an apology to the Presidency and the citizens on the same day the incident happened. There were concerns on how long the process took, and the costs involved in litigation. The Corporation acknowledged and accepted these concerns, as part of what it went through which led to a court case.

As for the SABCs quick disciplinary response to the matter, the disciplinary measures were taken based on the grounds the original clip which should have been transmitted, was prepared an hour in advance, but instead another clip was played at the time of transmission. This alone served as sufficient reason to believe there was a problem in the way the original clip was handled. Some of the issues surrounding this case were coming up in the court process. It would be impossible to discuss the details of the case with the Committee.

Ms Magopeni ended by saying she would take the advice of the Board in proceeding further on sharing more details of the case, for the Committee’s better understanding.

Ms Faku said the editorial forum should be recognised and allowed to engage with the Committee whenever the need arises. The Committee had an obligation to listen to the public, editorial forum, and whoever wants to come and speak on the work done by the Committee. It was important to clarify all assumptions. The Committee was aware of the SABCs representatives, and the editorial forum only worked for the SABC.

Mr Molala said he was confused by Ms Magopeni’s statement about an apology being issued by SABC on the same day the incident happened. The Committee has held four or five meetings since the incident, and the Corporation never mentioned issuing a statement of apology until now. He wanted clarity on the exact time the apology was made, and asked if it was before the statement of sabotage came up in the meeting.

The Chairperson asked the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to reply to issues around the editorial forum, and also shed light on the apology said to have been given by the SABC.

Dr Mosia replied to follow-up questions.

On the issue of labour relations and the Labour Court, typically, the Employee Relations Unit was responsible for internal matters up to the point of the CCMA. Practicing advocates and attorneys were not employed into the SABC environment. All SABC cases were handled by labour relations, until a certain stage.

Employment, relationship, and discipline is a function of the line manager. The line manager was responsible for issuing the intention to charge, and is guided by HR and labour relations. It must make a determination on what is appropriate according to the charges. SABCs disciplinary code will dictate the appropriate charges.

On the question of employees waiting to be deployed and placed into various positions reapplying for  positions, he said, not all employees were expected to apply for the positions. If an employee’s current position in the proposed structure was not affected, he or she would not be expected to apply. The purpose of making employees apply for positions was to minimise the number of individuals who would be affected by actual termination.

If for instance there were 20 similar positions cut down to ten, it would mean 20 individuals will be affected. These 20 individuals are expected to compete for the ten positions through an application which determines who is suited for the ten available positions.

Once the SABC became aware the proposed structures were going to lead to redundancies, it declared a moratorium on filling critical vacancies. Those critical positions and vacancies were available in the proposed structure. Affected individuals have to compete for those positions. Some are promotional opportunities, and are made available for all to apply for. Individuals who are successful would vacate the current positions for the new ones, while the positions which become vacant, would be made available for individuals who are within the pool.

Regarding the skills audit, the SABC’s response remains the same. The response given earlier was based on an earlier question around the rationale for proceeding with Section 189 when the Skills Audit was yet to be completed. It was based on the understanding of the question Adv Vanara replied to, regarding a Skills Audit not being a prerequisite for Section 189.

The second part of the question posed by the Committee was centred on how SABC planned to utilise the Skills Audit now it was seeing results. The response to this question has not changed, contrary to what the Committee said.

On the follow-up question which emerged regarding notices issued for appointments, and deemed irregular and unlawful, Dr Mosia said employees were expected to receive appointment letters on 19 October 2020.

Respective HR managers were tasked with distribution of letters and engagement with various line managers, as was done when SABC requested those staff members to present why their services should not be terminated. Unfortunately in this case, the employee in question could not be reached by the respective HR manager, who was on leave. The HR manager e-mailed the notice to the employee who was on air at the time, and unfortunately, the employee opened the said mail. It was clear the HR manager did not know where the employee was, but because the HR manager intended to issue the notice before end of business on 19 October, he sent the notice via mail. It was not the intention of the HR manager to remove the employee while on air. SABC has yet to have an opportunity to debrief this matter further, since the HR manager was still on leave. Dr Mosia committed to updating the Committee on any other information which comes to light on this matter.

Regarding litigation, Adv Vanara said the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) uses Werksmans attorneys in a number of litigations. The SIU also made use of Werksmans as its team. This includes the subsequent SIU investigation, and the litigation which ensued. The SABC saw an opportunity to mitigate costs, and took a decision not to employ the services of a different legal firm, since the SIU worked closely with Werksmans on the matter. He could not comment on the litigation Werksmans was allegedly involved in with PRASA, as he did not hold a brief in this regard.

He agreed with Mr Molala’s view on the issue of pursuing personal costs against allegations of reckless decision making within the legal team. There should be consequences for any kind of reckless behaviour by any official. In putting matters into perspective, it was pointed out that there seem to be a view that suggests the legal unit had a free reign in deciding and taking matters to court. The head of legal directly reports to the group CEO. The SABC had a group executive committee to which all reports that relate to litigation are presented for interrogation and accountability. Reports submitted to Parliament are also sent to this board for transparency and accountability on a number of issues, including the decision making around matters in court. Ultimately the board plays an oversight role over the decision making which in itself is a deterrent to decisions that seem to serve selfish interests, and will not advance the interest of the Corporation. He noted emphatically that every decision that he had taken in his position has been taken in the interest of the Corporation.

The question asked by Mr Molala on the issue of Ms Phasha suggests she was getting paid while at home. This position was incorrect. The employment was terminated in December 2018, and no money was paid to her for being at home since this date.

On the capacity of SABCs internal legal team, Adv Vanara understood his responsibility as a leader, to build his team, to coach and make the team better professionals. There were also certain areas of development, but this was not the reason for employing external resources. The external resources were employed because of the operating model in use, which allows practicing attorneys and advocates to be engaged for the SABC to appear in court. Anything else is handled internally.

He responded to the allegations of his arrogance, saying he had no intention of coming across as arrogant, and he apologised if he was seen as such.

On the question of catering and use of consultants, Ms van Biljon said, over a two-year period, the Corporation spent R6 million on catering. This included R4 million spent on canteen services throughout some of the offices in the corporation. The balance of approximately R2 million was mainly distributed in different categories.

The SABC had a cost containment directive similar to the one issued by plenary some years ago, to guide the business on utilising the budget for any kind of services. This includes events in support of SABCs platforms and properties. Events in this case referred to some internal events, specifically internship graduation programmes; events with external parties and/or stakeholders present, as well as anything which involves SABC employees, and for internal purposes only.

With respect to the PR firm specifically, the SABC repeatedly received feedback from various external parties, on the effect its negative reputation had on the perception of decision makers and stakeholders in its engagement with the organisation. Similar concerns were expressed at other forums. It was for this reason the SABC employed the services of a firm specialising in reputation management, to assess this very sensitive topic over a 12-month period.

The firm was working closely with the SABC’s internal communications department who oversees all communications in the organisation. SABC was sure the firm will be able to help equip its team, so when the firm departs in about 12 months, the SABC team will be adequately empowered to deal with matters relating to reputation management, with the same level of skill and expertise.

On the issue of the commercial viability of the SABC, Mr Madoda Mxakwe, Group CEO: SABC, said SABC had a turnaround plan with a timeframe of 36 months, as mandated by the Board and approved by shareholders. The Corporation was now in the 11th month of implementing the turnaround plan, and a closer look at the accounts will show the milestones and objectives the Corporation was able to achieve.

The turnaround plan was premised on sound business fundamentals. SABCs goals were clear. It targeted dealing with the high cost base, which in this instance referred to the operational cost of about 43% for staff compensation, and 12% which went into signal distribution for SENTECH. SABC was concurrently driving growth in a very constrained economic environment, where most of its clients were holding off budgets on advertising and marketing.

The Corporation was basically fighting with the competency of skill it has. The documents previously submitted to the Committee, showed a significant reduction in net losses for the SABC. This proved the strategy being implemented was helping. From an expenditure point of view, SABC deliberately ensured reduction, moving from about R7 billion on expenditure to about R6 billion. This was part of the turnaround plan to deal with non-essential costs. Based on the strategy, it was clear the SABC could no longer delay to reduce the cost of signal distribution and employee cost, as was mandated and outlined in the turnaround plan. This also related to the conditions attached when the National Treasury gave SABC a guarantee in 2009.

The SABC was taking these decisive actions in the interest of not just the sustainability of the organisation, but also the fulfilment of the mandate. It also wanted to prevent the Corporation from being a perpetually dependent organisation, and to avoid putting a continuous strain on the fiscus.

In line with the turnaround plan, the SABC was able to improve its internal controls. The turnaround plan helped to stabilise an organisation essentially hollowed-out and rendered dysfunctional. The need to instil good governance in the business was actually beginning to bear fruit. SABC no longer had to give huge discounts to clients. The focus shifted to generating sufficient revenue for the corporation.

At a later stage, the SABC would share a robust commercial strategy to enable it to compete fairly in the market. The goal is to be able to defend its classic revenue, ensure all lost business is recovered, and to engage in new businesses.

The GE on Sales would speak further on plans to maximise sell-out; and additional source of revenue for the SABC. SABC was committed to the turnaround strategy and was certain it would break even within a 24-month period, which was fully in line with the 36-month turnaround strategy. Financial viability was indeed achievable if SABC acts on all plans contained in the turnaround plan.

On the issue of content acquisition focused only on Gauteng and Western Cape, this was essentially as a result of the infrastructure in those provinces, as well as the huge investment in the sector. In mitigating this, SABC ensured so-called marginalised languages will also get TV properties.

He listed Lithapo and Muvhango as examples of projects in languages which are marginalised. Investment in TV content takes long by industry standards as one must build a base from an audience point of view. This will help the Corporation reach a point of seeing the returns on investment, which would contribute to being financially viable.

The GE for Television will speak more on the strategies to achieve this in the closed session.

The SABC used the bailout funds to invest in compelling content. A lot of TV properties were introduced and more will be introduced, especially for the new entrepreneurs in the market.

As for radio, plans are being executed to ensure the 73% market share the SABC has, can be converted into revenue. Heavy investments were made into the Corporation’s brands, to ensure a pricing model which can compete favourably in the market, and is commensurate with the reach and audience the SABC has.

Above all, the SABC has a competent and committed team, driven by a need to not only achieve financial sustainability, but also a desire to fulfil the public mandate of the organisation.

In rounding off the responses, Mr Makhathini asked for fairness and justice from the Committee, regarding translating the allegations made by the Labour Unions to mean SABC was lying. It is absurd, when the SABC presents evidence to the contrary, no one says the Unions are lying. To use the word ‘lying’ was extreme. The Committee may disagree with the SABC on a lot of things, but he humbly requested the Chairperson to protect the SABC from allegations of lying, as the SABC has never lied to the Committee.

Ms Faku raised a point of order, noting she did not hear anyone say the SABC was lying. She asked the Chairperson to identify who made the statement.

Ms Majozi said she did not hear anyone say the SABC was lying. What she heard Mr Molala say was that the unions said there was no protection because it did not get a response. She asked SABC not to misinterpret statements made by committee members.

Ms Van Damme asked the SABC not to build an acrimonious relationship with the Committee. Optimum focus should be placed on the important matters which require the Committee’s attention, to prevent going off track on other issues. Issues such as a statement saying the SABC was lying should not be allowed to derail the Committee.

The Chairperson agreed with Ms Van Damme on the need to focus on the issues before the Committee. He said the SABC went off track by responding to issues raised by other stakeholders. Although the Committee had a right of reply to issues raised by other stakeholders, it was important to stay focused on the issues raised by Committee Members.

Other issues would be brought up for discussion in the closed session.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

 

 

 

Documents

No related documents

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: