Chairperson, the chairperson of the portfolio committee has just described the problems under the old SABC board and the problems created by the sitting GCEO Advocate Dali Mpofu to justify an attempted purge of the new board. Now I am going to tell it the way it was and is.
Sir, when the outgoing government intimidates ANC MPs into inserting three names over and above the eight which all MPs from all parties unanimously supported for the SABC, then that is bad but it is not a Mbeki board. However, when the incoming government or parts of the Tripartite Alliance try to intimidate the whole newly appointed board into resigning, that is worse. Who will be next? The SA Human Rights Council, the Independent Electoral Commission, IEC or judges? Sir, those persons are protected from arbitrary attack in Parliament by the requirement that a substantive motion has to be brought.
The SABC is not as grand as they are, although it enjoys the same appointment procedure, but that does not mean you can make unsubstantiated attacks on them. It does not mean you can unseat them. I am withdrawing my proposal that we should amend the Broadcasting Act's removal provision to give Parliament a role, because Parliament, in that committee, does not seem to understand that a person let alone a body of persons has to do their job badly or do something wrong before you can act against them.
Do not think for one moment that the twin suspensions at the SABC or the Mpofu court verdict means the ANC MPs had a case against the board. Not only did they not have a case, they never formulated a complaint; they never formulated a charge. Therefore no evidence was offered, and the board hardly knew from day one to day two what defence to offer, indeed even that they had to offer one since they never knew what they stood accused of until the sentence was pronounced, out of the blue, and the verdict.
It is only the Queen of Hearts, you know, from Alice in Wonderland, who believes "the sentence comes first, the verdict afterwards." And even the King and the Queen of Hearts had the hang of the idea of a trial or an inquiry because the Knave of Hearts knew he stood accused of something - the board didn't. The Knave of Hearts knew that that something was specifically the stealing of the tarts, all on a summer's day. You are the members of the South African Parliament and this report before you, printed on Friday 16 May purports to be, as its heading indicates, about the budget, strategic plan and priorities of the SABC.
However, these matters have not been discussed to this day. They have not been read by the ANC MPs, I will tell you that. On 29 April, the ANC insisted, contrary to practice, that the whole board should fly in to see - read your report- "whether they collectively take ownership of the strategic plan". Did they bake these tarts? You would have expected therefore that this plan would have formed at least the basis of the next day's discussion, not to mention the eventual damning findings: "That there is serious concern at the failure and inability of the board to fulfil its statutory duties", and that "it was not in a position to execute its fiduciary duties." Really? Really, so they cannot bake tarts? How do you know?
Not a single question was asked on these matters, not a word. The reports were not dealt with and yet you see it fit to bring such findings.
Now let me tell you what the deliberations in the committee did consist of on day two, 30 April, until we walked out when a motion of no confidence was pulled like a white rabbit out of a Mad Hatter's hat. It is a thing that has no basis and no effect, such a vote of no confidence, as we said as we walked out. A motion of no confidence will not be put in this House today because you cannot put such a thing.
The ANC's recommended motion also has no substance. The proceedings on day two consisted of an ambush. The Chair announced at the commencement that what was now on the table, today, was a different tray of tarts altogether, namely the memorandum leaked to the Sunday Times. It was not tabled. I haven't read it; the hon Kgotso Khumalo said he hadn't read it. He must not tell us here today, by the way, that there were other unresolved issues, as the Chair has just tried to do.
The new board reported on those outstanding issues inherited from the old board on 27 February. Mr Khumalo says with a straight face that the committee has not been briefed on the Premier Soccer League, PSL, radio soccer rights. We have, by Mr Peter Mancer of the PSL. There is one issue you never want to deal with - politics in Sea Point - and when the hon Vos tried to raise it very substantively, you silenced her.
So this report misleads when it says: "The following issues pertaining to the SABC were considered" and then lists matters from point one through to point six. They were not considered. Sir, the half dozen board members present on day two were challenged, at forefinger nail-point of impressive length, by the hon Lumka Yengeni to say one by one whether they took ownership, line by line, not of the strategic plan for which they had been summoned to fly in, but of the memorandum posted on the Sunday Times website. "Off with their heads! - as the Queen of Hearts used to say in Alice in Wonderland.
Now let me tell you why the board was really flown in. They were flown in for a staged showdown with their own management. The management were presumptively offered protection. Now you really don't need privilege to complain that the board didn't see you as a collective, but insisted on its own person-to-person procedure. That is really all this entire motion rests on: So-called differences driven by MPs, I am sorry to say, supported by Mrs Nzimande, who felt that the memorandum about Adv Mpofu was really about them all. Fine, go down with Dali, as far as I'm concerned.
This is another attempted purge like Blade Nzimande's attempt to tell Media 24 to purge Mathata Tsedu. The ANC has not proved a thing against a four- month old board which it damns, when I think the board is trying to deal precisely with old problems, including the loss of not one but two sets of sports rights by a CEO who would long ago have been sacked in the private commercial broadcasting sphere.
It is unacceptable when MPs orchestrate differences or collude with management to get rid of a board that they appointed which is actually trying to do its work. I think that it is one of many purges being carried out in this country by an incoming power bloc, which sweeps procedure and justice aside, and it is a phenomenon that concerns me very deeply. [Applause.]