SASCOC on preparation for AGM, CSA matter & arbitration process

Sport, Arts and Culture

20 October 2020
Chairperson: Ms B Dlulane (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee was given an update on the situation at Cricket South Africa (CSA), after which Members of the SA Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC) board expressed their concern at what they perceived as a self-serving cabal intent on taking over control of the organisation.

SASCOC said there was negative publicity relating to the administration of cricket in South Africa, with concerns raised with regard to the functionality of the CSA board and senior management. The forensic report was yet to be made available, and serious allegations had been made relating to the board having been captured. Recent media reports indicated that CSA was bent on “self-correcting” whilst its current board members and executive management, who must have been implicated in the forensic report, remained in office, and were refusing to step aside pending finalisation of the investigations to be carried out by the independent task team. It was clear that CSA, which had resources at its disposal, would not readily cooperate with SASCOC, and a dispute would result in protracted and expensive litigation. SASCOC simply did not possess the resources to pursue legal proceedings against CSA.

A Member expressed concerned as to why the President of SASCOC had not attended the meetings with CSA, because the meetings were important and had to be taken seriously. There seemed to be a miscommunication between SASCOC and CSA, and there was a need to find out what was causing this.

SASCOC said that after Covid-related delays, final confirmation of the SGM had been made in August. However, circulation of final agenda had posed challenges, as the Board and the International Olympic Committee/ International Paralympic Committee (IOC/IPC) facilitator did not agree with it, due to some of the agenda items being open ended. Due to contestations about the final agenda, the Board had sought legal opinion regarding its constitutionality.

Members were concerned at the undue influence of the IOC, and wanted to know if it had any interest in the forthcoming annual general meeting elections. Representatives of the netball, weightlifting and athletics federations commented on meetings that were being run by groups, and some of the board members not having any say. They also accused the suspended president of failing to meet the board to answer their questions. There were people at SASCOC who acted in a manner that compromised the integrity of the organisation, and resolutions taken reflected the unconducive environment. Elections were being managed by a certain cabal, and they would never be free and fair. The interference of the IOC was worrisome. Some people had certain interests in SASCOC, and they would do whatever they could to achieve their intentions.

The Committee was not pleased with the fact that there was no stability at SASCOC. There was a lot of blame aimed at the leadership, and no one wanted to accept accountability. It decided that because of the serious issues that had been raised, it was necessary for the Minister of Sport to be involved. The Committee would schedule another meeting with SASCOC so that he could participate in discussions aimed at resolving the situation.

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed Members to the virtual meeting, and thanked them for availing themselves during these tough times. She briefly touched on the previous meetings and what had been discussed between the Committee and Cricket South Africa (CSA). She mentioned that the Minister of Sport could not make it for the meeting.

Members were not pleased with the absence of the Minister, because they were of the view that he had a mandate to serve on the Committee, and he was missing out on important discussions.

Mr T Mhlongo (DA) did not accept the apology from the Minister.

Ms V Malomane (ANC) said that she accepted the apology from the Minister. She understood that he had different tasks to attend to.

Mr M Seabi (ANC) said that she concurred with Ms Malobane on accepting the apology from the Minister. The meeting should proceed because the Committee could send questions in writing to the Minister.

Mr Mhlongo said his refusal of the apology should be noted.

The Chairperson reminded Members that the Covid-19 pandemic was still affecting the country and the Minister had to attend a meeting that was dealing with Covid-19, and it was of more importance because decisions had to be taken on how to move forward as a country. She pleaded with the Committee to understand that the country was still going through a difficult time because of the pandemic.

Mr W Faber (DA) was of the view that the Minister should try by all means to attend Committee meetings, as it would be helpful to have his input.

SASCOC presentation

Cricket South Africa issues

Mr Ravi Govender, Acting Chief Executive Officer (CEO), SA Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC), started by giving a background on the issues at Cricket South Africa (CSA). He said there was negative publicity relating to the administration of cricket in South Africa, with concerns raised with regard to the functionality of the CSA board and senior management, the suspension and dismissal of the CEO, Mr Thabang Moroe, the resignations of the president, Mr Chris Nenzani, and the acting CEO, Mr Jacques Faul, and his subsequent serious allegations into maladministration at CSA. The forensic report commissioned by the CSA Members Council and/or the CSA Ethics Committee was yet to be made available, even to the Portfolio Committee. Serious allegations had been made relating to the CSA board having been captured, as well as to a certain member of the board having incurred unauthorised expenditure.

He also said the request by one of CSA’s members, as well as by members of the South African Cricketers Association (SACA) for the CSA board to step down, and the refusal by CSA to make the forensic report unconditionally available to SASCOC, had not enabled it to make a proper study and obtain advice on the findings and recommendations of the report.

During the first exploratory meeting between SASCOC and CSA on 1 September, SASCOC had requested it to respond to allegations of systemic racism within CSA structures, the amendment of the Memorandum of Incorporation (MOI), concerns regarding its geo-political alignment, the request for access to the forensic investigation conducted by Fundudzi Forensic Services, and the management of the forensic investigation report and the implementation of the recommendations and findings.

More recent media reports indicated that CSA was bent on “self-correcting” whilst its current board members and executive management, who must have been implicated in the forensic report, remained in office, and were refusing to step aside pending finalisation of the investigations to be carried out by the independent task team.

It had become abundantly clear that CSA, which had resources at its disposal, would not readily cooperate with SASCOC, and it was inevitable that a dispute would be declared between SASCOC and CSA which would result in protracted and expensive litigation. SASCOC simply did not possess the resources to pursue legal proceedings against CSA.

SASCOC special general meeting

Ms Patience Shikwambana, Chief Operating Officer (COO), SASCOC, presented on the special general meeting (SGM). The call for the SGM had been sent on 7 May, as per the set timeline in the constitution, with agenda Items for the meeting. After Covid-related delays, final confirmation of the SGM was made in August.

Circulation of final agenda had posed challenges, as the Board and the International Olympic Committee/ International Paralympic Committee (IOC/IPC) facilitator did not agree to it, due to some of the agenda items being open ended. The office of honorary IOC member, Mr Sam Ramsamy, had finally circulated the agenda without the Board’s endorsement. Due to contestations about the final agenda, the Board had commissioned the office to get legal opinion in relation to its constitutionality. The meeting was supposed to have been co-chaired as agreed, but the IOC/IPC had run with the meeting.

She said SASCOC membership had received correspondence from Canoeing SA on behalf of the 55 member organisations. An urgent board meeting had been convened for 18 October to discuss the IOC/IPC letter.

Discussion

The Chairperson thanked the SASCOC board Members for their brief presentations, and opened the floor to Members so that they could ask questions and raise their concerns.

Mr Faber said that he was concerned why the President of SASCOC had not attended the meeting with CSA, because the meetings were important and they had to be taken seriously. There seemed to be a miscommunication between SASCOC and CSA, and there was a need to find out what was causing this.

Mr Mhlongo did not have kind words for SASCOC. He said that it was being run like a political party, and asked if there were factions within the organisation. He said that the ministerial team should provide responses to the Committee, because he wanted to know what their view was on what was happening at SASCOC, and for allowing a motion to be tabled even though it did not follow the SASCOC constitution. Legal opinions were not being followed at SASCOC and it was tarnishing the image of the organisation. He asked why Mr Barry Hendricks, the acting President, was not participating in the disciplinary hearings, because he was innocent until proven guilty, and reiterated that Mr Hendricks should be fired from SASCOC. He raised the issue of Mr Hendricks attending a previous meeting without an invitation from the Committee. He also asked what position was held by Mr Kobus Marais.

Ms V van Dyk (DA) wanted to know if there had been a decision by SASCOC to withdraw disciplinary action, and if the constitution had been amended to ensure participation in the Paralympic Games.

Mr Marais responded that he belonged to the South African Sports Association for the Physically Disabled, and it was the federation that all the paralympic athletes belonged to.

Mr Seabi asked if there were any members from the IOC or IPC who had an interest in running for office in SASCOC’s upcoming AGM elections. Was Mr Hendricks working alone or taking over from the board, because he was doing his own thing and disregarding the legal opinions from lawyers. The facilitator was compromised, because he wanted to have a certain outcome and it showed that he had picked a side to work with.

Netball SA

Ms Cecilia Molokwane, President, Netball SA, said she had intended on making a presentation, and some of the questions asked by Members were part of her presentation, and she would provide the answers. She said the meeting with the facilitator was unconstitutional and she had raised the issue, but had received a negative response from the facilitator. He had mentioned that he was in a position to flaunt the constitution and do as he pleased. SASCOC had flaunted their own constitution because of the influence of the IOC facilitator, and had been influenced to vote against their own constitution.

She had raised her concerns and said that they had to report what was being done by the IOC. A handover meeting had been called by Mr Aleck Skhosana, SASCOC Acting President, but Mr Hendricks had not attended because he was not comfortable with the board. Personal interests should be put aside so that the board could work together for the betterment of athletes in the country.

Ms Molokwane said that Mr Hendricks did not want to hold meetings with the board, and he did things without the knowledge of the board. There were factions at SASCOC, and they could be seen by everyone during meetings, and it was affecting the organisation. Instead of prioritising athletes, the board had been busy fighting for power and was missing their mandate. She was of the view that Mr Hendricks should attend the disciplinary hearings so that an outcome would be derived as to whether he was innocent or guilty.

The Chairperson reminded Members that Mr Hendricks had made strange comments at a previous meeting, and she had told him that they were going to have a meeting with SASCOC, and the matter would be dealt with. She was worried about how SASCOC was going to monitor the AGM in November because of the flaunting of the constitution. It was evident that things were not well at SASCOC. She emphasised the importance of respecting the constitution of SASCOC, since it was the highest law for sport in the country, and they had to make sure that other federations abided by the laws.

Mr Mhlongo said that he had not yet received any answers for his questions, and he would like to receive responses.

Ms Van Dyk wanted to know the background to the disciplinary charges against the acting president.

Mr B Madlingozi (EFF) asked why the resolution had been taken by SASCOC to terminate the disciplinary hearings. He also wanted to know when younger officials would be voted in to run SASCOC. Lastly. he asked if those running SASCOC were corruption free.

Bodybuilding SA

Mr Kaya Majeke (SASCOC, bodybuilding) said that there used to be a good working relationship with Mr Hendricks. and he remembered where the dispute came from. Mr Hendricks had met only once with SASCOC, and did not spend even 30 minutes at the meeting. He said that in 2016, the constitution had been flaunted and the facilitator was also behind this. The manner in which people of colour were being treated at SASCOC was like pre-1994, when those with lighter skins were listened to better than people of colour. The IOC facilitator had demoralised the organisation because of his biases. He had an interest in the elections, with certain candidates that he wanted to win, but the board had trusted him to bring change for the betterment of the country. Meetings were being run by groups, and some of the board members did not have a say at those meetings. Board members did not know anything about Project Famingo, and they had required answers from Mr Hendricks, but he had continuously said that he was not available to meet with the board.

Mr Majeke said that he had received some disturbing reports from board members in regard to the court matters that were currently ongoing. There were people at SASCOC who acted in a manner that compromised the integrity of the organisation, and resolutions taken reflected the unconducive environment at SASCOC. Elections were being managed by a certain cabal, and they would never be free and fair. The manner in which board members were treated was very concerning.

He made a plea to the Committee Members to deal with the current state of affairs at SASCOC, as they were the last resort. He said they had tried everything but had achieved no results. The interference of the IOC was worrisome. He also questioned the process in which members were elected to international sporting organisations, because it did not reflect the true state of affairs. Some people had certain interests in SASCOC, and they would do whatever they could to achieve their intentions.

Mr Mhlongo said that he was still waiting for Mr Hendricks to respond to the questions raised by Members.

Mr Hendricks’s response

Mr Hendricks said that he was saddened by the allegations that were being raised, but he did respect the comments made because they were in the interest of sport in the country. He said that in the preparations for the first general meeting with SASCOC board after he was reinstated, he had had a meeting with Mr Govender to try to iron out issues. He had been notified that the board was going to have a meeting on the Friday, and said he would like to be supplied with previous minutes of the meetings, and that he wanted more time to prepare. He did not say he was uncomfortable meeting with the board, but only wanted to have more time to prepare and receive material so that he would make a correct decision. The meeting was planned, even after he had raised his concerns, and nothing was provided in the agenda for the extension of the CEO’s contract. He had been of the view that it was an important matter, and should be included in the agenda. The process followed was not the correct one, and he had never said that he did not want to associate with the board. All he had asked for was a postponement, and he had responded to the board in writing.

Mr Hendricks said he had not sent the letter to IOC in the first instance, but had sent it to the board and did not receive any response. Not attending the meeting had been a right decision, because there had been many hidden agendas. The IOC had asked SASCOC to move on and focus on the AGM, and this was supported by other 55 sporting federations in the country. There were known factions in SASCOC, and this was evident by the way he had been the only one who had been dragged to the disciplinary process.

Mr Hendricks said that he had encouraged the process of having independent disciplinary hearings, and he had been found innocent. A parallel process had been conducted by the arbitrator and SASCOC, using what they called the SASCOC judicial body. The SASCOC board had revoked the judicial board, which showed that their intention was to make sure that he was out of SASCOC by any means -- they would not follow the correct protocol, and would do anything to achieve their goals.

He said that he had been patient enough for a long time because of the stress that had been caused by these allegations. He said had never mentioned that he would not attend board meetings, but it was because of the way in which things were being done -- he had not received any minutes of meetings, and neither was he invited to to attend them. He added that he was not in allegiance with CSA. No-one should be stopped from contesting for positions at SASCOC, as it was within their rights to do so.

Mr Hendricks said that the general assembly was the highest authority of SASCOC, and the board could not go against the decisions it took. The previous speakers who had said that the constitution had been flaunted had forgotten that they had accepted the outcome in 2016, and that process had been illegal, but now they were talking about the constitution being flaunted.

He said that Mr Majeke was wrong and hypocritical, and Mr Majeke responded by saying that he was being misquoted.

Mr Hendricks continued to say that Mr Majeke fluctuated in his statements. Mr Majeke appealed for protection from the Chairperson because of the language being used by Mr Hendricks. The Chairperson interjected.

Mr Hendricks suggested that one of the board members speak about the disciplinary charges against him so that he could respond. He said that the Project Flamingo raised by Mr Majeke was a confidential matter and was not supposed to be discussed because it could be used against SASCOC, as there were ongoing cases at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). He added that the project was legal, and nothing illegal had been done because board members knew about the project.

He had not been prepared to attend meetings because he could see that he was being set up for failure, and there were certain agendas among board members. Confidence in the board had been lost. The nominations process had started, and an independent company would be employed to run the elections. He was willing to work with everyone on the board, because it was important for the sporting fraternity to stabilise SASCOC.

Mr Marais’ response

Mr Marais added his views after Mr Hendricks, and said he had challenged people like Mr Hendricks to show him if he was wrong. So far he had not been proven guilty, because he worked according to the statutes and tried his level best to do things by the book. It was up to members if they wished to change the constitution, and he was proud that he had not flaunted it. He complimented the board for taking decisions that were in the best interest of SASCOC.

The meeting was disrupted for a short time after Mr Qondisa Ngwenya entered the meeting. It emerged that he had an interest in the SASCOC elections, as he was also running for some positions, but he had said that he was a reporter. Members agreed to have him removed from the meeting.

Mr Faber was concerned at the fact that anyone was attending the meetings without proper accreditation, because the same thing had happened the previous week, also with CSA.

Mr Marais said that Mr Hendricks should not choose when he wanted to have democracy to prevail, because he had been acting otherwise for some time.

Further discussion

Mr Mhlongo said that Mr Hendricks had not responded to the questions that had been addressed to him. He had said that he was innocent until he was proven guilty. He wanted to know his view on the withdrawal of the nomination of one woman who had been nominated. What relationships did he have with law firms that took nominations, and why did he tell the nation that Mr Skosana had not submitted supporting documents? Was Mr Hendricks was aware that the Gauteng Sports Confederation had submitted a motion, and if it was constitutional or not?

Mr Mhlongo wanted to know if the board extended the CEO position for 12 months, and why Mr Hendricks had not been furnished with materials for the meetings that had been mentioned. He asked if Mr Hendricks was running for the coming elections.

There were issues at SASCOC as the mother body, and it reflected badly on how sports were being run in South Africa. He was concerned that SASCOC was withholding some information, especially because the members had different views on the Flamingo Project. He wanted to know if the IOC and IPC were interfering in SASCOC matters. He also proposed that SASCOC must have a new board. because there was no possibility of having fair elections at the forthcoming elections.

Ms Van Dyk wanted to know who was going to be responsible for the legal implications involved in the Flamingo Project, and why SASCOC had not wanted to sign the non-disclosure agreement when they were presented with that opportunity by CSA.

Mr Seabi said that the process of the AGM was not going to be fair because the constitution had been flaunted already. He suggested that the Committee get the minutes of the AGM and invite the facilitator so that they could make sure everything was done in the interests of citizens at large. He added that the Minister needed to be closer to the process.

The Chairperson said that it was worrisome that SASCOC was not in a good state, because they were the mother body of sporting federations in the country and if they did not have their own house in order, it was a bad reflection.

Mr Madlingozi asked if SASCOC was being run by a corruption-free cabal, and why Mr Hendricks had made other participants withdraw their intentions to run for office. He said the Minister should always be present at such meetings in order to assist the process.

Ms Molokwane was saddened by what was happening in the sporting federations, and said some of the representatives were still not honest in the meeting. It was the first time she had heard about the nominations committee. She was concerned about the way Mr Hendricks was addressing the Committee, because he was excluding himself from the board, and they were supposed to work as a team. If things were not going well, it should be a collective that was blamed, without fingers being pointed and excluding others from the issues. When she was elected on to the SASCOC board, the factions were already there and it was concerning. Board members should not want to try and clear themselves, but should lead wholeheartedly. Some of the board members were intentionally being dishonest. She called for honesty to be the pillar of SASCOC.

Mr Skhosana’s comments

Mr Skhosana said that he had chaired a couple of meetings when his colleague was on leave. The meetings had mostly dealt with SASCOC issues and he wanted to thank the board for having trust in him to lead. He said that the constitution had been violated, and the views of the board members had not been taken into consideration. The way the meeting was conducted had been “like a mob.” They had their agendas to achieve at the meeting, and the decisions taken were unconstitutional.

The board members had shown respect, but there was no consistency in how they were being treated, and letters from the IOC did not reach the Acting CEO. When the board asked about the letters at the meeting, they had been dismissed as little children and the words used at the meeting had been belittling towards them. The legal advice had come from senior counsel, and they were aware of the SASCOC constitution, but the advice was watered down and not taken into consideration. The board took resolutions following the SASCOC constitution, and they had lodged a dispute in order to deal with the issue so that there would be no legal precedent in the future. He added that the issue of the judicial body at SASCOC had not only emanated when Mr Hendricks was being sidelined, but he had also used the same body, and some of the recommendations had not been implemented.

Mr Skhosana said that it was true that the AGM was not going to be free and fair because of the factions. There were people who were favoured to be elected, and the board did not support this because sports belonged to everyone in the country. SASCOC had to be renewed because it was being used to settle personal scores at the moment. The hyenas were eating the SASCOC carcase for their own benefit, and there were a lot of issues that needed to be dealt with.

He said he was not aware of the Flamingo Project, although he had been a member of the board for the past four years, and it was shocking. If things continued like the way they were, it would be difficult to attract sponsors. He pleaded with the board to help in resolving the issues so that there would be a unified organisation. There were people waiting to have an opportunity to do as they pleased once they were given the opportunity. He closed by saying that respect was needed at SASCOC, and no one was above the law or the board.

Mr Faber said that it was very important that the Minister attended the meetings because of the amount of concerns raised. His authority was required, because SASCOC was not in a position to resolve its own issues because of the factions. There was no way forward from the Committee’s point of view without the intervention of the Minister.

The Chairperson said she had seen the issue coming the last time she had attended the AGM. The elections had been one-sided, and she had also had to ask the former president what was happening at SASCOC. The reality was that everyone wanted a better SASCOC, but the current situation was not a good picture, and it was disappointing. SASCOC was the engine of all sports in the country and it was hurtful to see what was being done. The Committee needed to work on having the Minister and SASCOC at one meeting. She proposed that the Committee schedule another meeting with SASCOC so that the issues could be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

Mr Mhlongo proposed that the Minister and SASCOC attend the meeting next week in order to have a better understanding of the state of affairs. The proposal was seconded by Mr Faber.

Mr Seabi took over the meeting as acting chairperson, because Ms Dlulane was not feeling well.

Mr Hendricks said that one of the statements from the arbitrator had been very clear, and had indicated that there was no conspiracy, taking into consideration all matters. He was not aware of who had withdrawn their nomination from the elections, and all matters were dealt with through the nominations committee. He had been involved in the disciplinary process until the board had stopped the process, and he was willing to engage so that he could clear his name. He viewed the general assembly as the supreme authority of SASCOC, and he would take directions from them. He was also in agreement that the directions of the IOC and IPC should be taken into account.

Mr Hendricks said he was running for the position of president, and should he fail he would then stand for vice president. If he did not succeed in being elected to either position, he would step down as it would show that he had failed the people.

Regarding the letter from the Gauteng Sports Confederation, he said that the acting CEO was in a better position to provide feedback.

He asked the acting CEO to hand in all the correspondence from last year which involved the judicial body, because Mr Skhosana had raised the issue. Some of the statements that had been made were not true. He regarded himself as equal to everyone, and would follow the wishes of the board. If they did not want him to lead, then he would step down.

Mr Hendricks asked the Committee to call for a general meeting with other board members, and not have just a few people who were expressing their own views.

Ms Molokwane interjected, and said that what Mr Hendricks had said was wrong -- he should not lead the organisation in such a manner.

Mr Hendricks said that if the Committee required any records or information, it would be provided to them for clarity.

Mr Faber suggested that the Committee take into consideration the proposal raised by Mr Mhlongo to have another meeting with SASCOC next week, together with the Minister, because the whole meeting was about accusations.

Mr J Mamabolo (ANC) supported the proposal to have a meeting next week.

The Committee agreed to have another meeting with SASCOC the following week.

Adoption of minutes

The Committee adopted the minutes of its meetings on 25 August, and 1, 4 and 6 September 2020.

The meeting was adjourned.

Share this page: