ICASA Council vacancies: programme approval

Meeting report

The meeting was not covered by PMG for the first 20 minutes

Ms N Kubheka (ANC) agreed with Members that the applications for ICASA Council vacancies must be accredited. Vetting is very important. She emphasised that Members had to apply their minds on this decision to first accredit the applicants.

Mr L Molala (ANC) thought that the Subcommittee would meet before the actual shortlisting. We need to know the requirements. We need an outline of the current skills in the Council so we know where the gaps are. The shortlisting meeting will be very long. The Subcommittee needs to ensure that it knows the requirements ahead of time. If it has access to that information, it can begin the process now.

Mr Thembinkosi Ngoma, Committee Secretary, noted that a document is being developed that will specify the requirements for applicants which will be distributed to Members. After the shortlisting, the secretariat needs three weeks to notify the candidates and to arrange scheduling for interviews. There are 75 candidates for review, but the secretariat cannot shortlist on behalf of the committee. Those candidates who have been delisted and rejected so far are those who are unsure what the position entails and are under-qualified. Once the subcommittee has shortlisted candidates, the subcommittee will submit and table its selection to the parent committee to make the final decision.

Mr Mbombo Maleka, Committee Content Advisor, spoke about quotas and representation. After the removal of the ICASA Chairperson, there were three males and five females on the ICASA Council. One woman is outgoing, meaning that it would be left with only four women. No one has disabilities. Some applicants had higher qualifications in management, political science, commerce and history. In his opinion, focus should be placed on economic skills and technical management as desirable skills in a candidate. There needs to be a focus on content. ICASA does not presently have that kind of expertise on the Council.

The Chairperson emphasised that Members collectively needed to move forward on the process.

Ms A Mthembu (ANC) asked for clarity on what actually Members should want in a candidate for the Council? Members needed to understand.

Mr M Ndlozi (EFF) reminded Members that the process is public – it is open, not internal. The law impresses on us to be completely transparent. He implored the Chairperson to give Members the notes on applicants, as he wanted to see them. The selection criteria must be consistent with the law. The requirements of the law are clearly stipulated in Section 5 of the ICASA Act*. We want to be completely open. When we appointed this current Council, we found that there was very little pull, there used to be more. I can have a PhD, but I am not tried and tested. Most untested employees just get walked over. We have to go and do our own research to see if these candidates are credible. Members should request the CVs and will look at them ourselves. Perhaps we ought to read Section 5 together to ensure that the skill-sets and quotas are met.

The Chairperson reminded Members that they were a subcommittee. They are presented with a programme for the process. In this programme they can amend certain things, but the focus for Members now ought to be on qualifications and verification. The Subcommittee needs to ensure that we do not re-open discussions that we have clarity on.

Mr Molala reminded the Subcommittee that interested parties should not influence the decisions of the committee. This process is open, Members should remember this. We do not want to open the Sunday Times and see that the candidates have already been shortlisted before the committee has even looked at the documents.

Mr Ndlozi emphasised that the law states that the process ought to be open.

The Chairperson encouraged Members to get back to the discussion.

Mr C Mackenzie (DA) said that Members needed to see the names to ensure the candidates are acceptable.

Mr Ndlozi insisted that Parliament does not do anything in secret. We cannot stop the Sunday Times if they want to shortlist candidates. He reminded Members that, regardless of whether the media publishes names, Parliament is obliged to be transparent and open. He implored the Chairperson to give Members the names. The Sunday Times will publish and shortlist them even before we do anything. It is the law. You must not be moved by the Sunday Times but if you are then all strength to you. That is what a public process is.

The Chairperson asked if there were any more matters to clarify. He wanted to move to proposals.

The Committee Secretary noted that for the ICASA Council appointment process, once candidate names are published, the public is given the opportunity to comment on names and those comments are taken into consideration in the decision-making process.

The Chairperson said that Members need to get to a point where there is a suggestion on the table. They need to ensure that the qualifications have been verified before they move onto serious nominations. We should be sure about the candidates that we are considering. Members need to be cautious in the way that they manage the situation during this period. Even if anything is out there in the media, before we shortlist, at least we will know we have satisfied ourselves. We will not be substantially influenced by the media. Can we try to strike a balance? Allow the verification process but convene to shortlist before we leave this year. We do not want to recommend a person and thereafter have to address the candidate’s suitability.

Mr Maleka noted that spectrum licensing and such policies have been in the public domain for a long time. ICASA has procedures for addressing this. Our concern is mainly on continuity in our appointing.

Mr Ndlozi agreed that, at a technical level, Members want qualified candidates - but openness is non-negotiable. Transparency is the same as openness - it is a tautology. There is no need to wait for a list separate from another list. By 21 January, we will have everything and we will be shortlisting. You cannot be cagey, you are sending out the wrong message. The point of departure is the law. Give Members the names. We can go and find them ourselves, but it would be better if you give us the names. At least give us the CVs. I do not see the problem. If there is a candidate lying about their qualifications we can strike them off, but at least we have a sense of the field of applicants.

Ms Kubheka stressed that Members ought to allow the verification process to take place first.

Ms P Majozi (IFP) expressed her confusion as she thought the committee was reaching consensus on this decision. Phase 1 will be taken care of by Human Resources. Once they are finished, they put them into an ordered report format. Thereafter, we do our verification and come back on the 21 January. If the subcommittee does not allow human resources to their job we all might end up with a scandal where candidates are under-qualified.

Mr MacKenzie was similarly confused. A lot of under-qualified CVs were discarded. Then there were 75 candidates left. Thereafter, qualifications need to be verified and then state security has to do vetting. He wanted to see the pruned list because otherwise Members might be wasting their time with potentially unsuitable names. He also wanted to confirm that candidates do not have other senior positions where there might be conflicts of interest.

Ms A Mthembu (ANC) maintained that administration should be given the space to finish their verification process. We want to work in accordance with a balanced approach.

Mr Molala observed that there was nothing to indicate that the committee was not transparent. We are now in an administrative process. Once we sit on the shortlisting panel, the practice is that we publish the names. There is nothing opaque about it. Let us include everyone, so that when it comes to our conduct we are properly open and transparent.

Mr Ndlozi told the Chairperson that he could conduct the vetting, but he wanted all the names. He wanted to satisfy himself. You can say that 75 candidates qualify, but he was personally curious. On 29 November, we wake up and we get the report. Give us everything up front, it cannot be withheld.

The Chairperson stated that that the Members are agreed on the need for a transparent and verified report. The question is whether we need to have a meeting or if we ought to just receive the names. The Subcommittee could convene at end of November after it has received the report. All views would have been covered in the report. We will not force a meeting for the sake of having a meeting though. Can Members agree to that? He stressed to Mr Ndlozi that whilst he may not be available for every meeting, the intention was not to exclude him.

Mr Ndlozi replied that he was not sure what the purpose of that meeting would be. There would be nothing to do. The next time Members meet should be to shortlist. What would be the purpose of that meeting except to get the names? Even then, Members can be sent the names.

The Chairperson responded that if there is no need for a meeting there will be no meeting. He took it that the programme was adopted.

Ms Majozi emphasised that, after verification, the Subcommittee can look at applicants with the relevant skills and meet on the basis of how appropriate applicants seem to be in general.

The Chairperson asked if Members agreed to the programme.

Mr Molala thought that Ms Majozi was asserting that we ought to start working on the information when we get it.

Ms Majozi and Mr Ndlozi talked over each other in disagreement about the schedule.

The Chairperson requested order and asked if Members agreed to the programme.

The Committee adopted the programme with amendments.

Mr Ndlozi asked for the programme amendments to be summarised properly so he could note the changed dates.

The Committee Secretary informed Members that Tuesday 21 January is shortlisting for interviews, the interviews have been moved from Tuesday 18 February to Wednesday 19 February and Tuesday 3 March is for the final shortlisting.

The Chairperson thanked Members for making time for the Subcommittee meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.

*ICASA Act

Constitution of and appointment of councillors to Council
5. (1) The Council consists of seven councillors appointed by the President on the
recommendation of the National Assembly according to the following principles,
namely—
(a) participation by the public in the nomination process;
(b) transparency and openness; and
(c) the publication of a shortlist of candidates for appointment, with due regard to
subsection (3) and section 6.
(2)
(a) The President must appoint one of the councillors as chairperson of the Council.
(b) In the absence of the chairperson, the remaining councillors must from their number
elect an acting chairperson, who, while he or she so acts, may perform all the functions of
the chairperson.
(3) Persons appointed to the Council must be persons who—
(a) are committed to fairness, freedom of expression, openness and accountability on the
part of those entrusted with the governance of a public service; and
(b) when viewed collectively—
(i) are representative of a broad cross section of the population of the Republic; and
(ii) possess suitable qualifications, expertise and experience in the fields of, amongst
others, broadcasting and telecommunications policy, engineering, technology, frequency
band planning, law, marketing, journalism, entertainment, education, economics,
business practice and finance or any other related expertise or qualifications.
(4) A councillor appointed under this section must, before he or she begins to perform his
or her functions, take an oath or affirm that he or she—
(a) is committed to fairness, freedom of expression, openness and accountability; and
(b) will uphold and protect the Constitution and the laws of the Republic, including this
Act and the underlying statutes.

Disqualification
6. (1) A person may not be appointed as a councillor if he or she—
(a) is not a citizen of the Republic;
(b) is not permanently resident in the Republic;
(c) is a public servant or the holder of any other remunerated position under the State;
(d) is a member of Parliament, any provincial legislature or any municipal council;
(e) is an office-bearer or employee of any party, movement or organisation of a party political
nature:
(f) or his or her family member has a direct or indirect financial interest in the
telecommunications or broadcasting industry;
(g) or his or her business partner or associate holds an office in or with, or is employed
by, any person or body, whether corporate or unincorporated, which has an interest
contemplated in paragraph (f);
(h) is an unrehabilitated insolvent;
(i) has been declared by a court to be mentally ill or disordered;
(j) has at any time been convicted, whether in the Republic of elsewhere, of—
(i) theft, fraud, forgery or uttering a forged document, perjury, an offence in terms of the
Corruption Act, 1992 (Act No. 94 of 1992), or any other offence involving dishonesty; or
(j) an offence under this Act or the underlying statutes;
(k) has been sentenced, after the commencement of the Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa, 1993 (Act No. 200 of 1993), to a period of imprisonment of not less than
one year without the option of a fine; or
(l) has at any time been removed from an office of trust on account of misconduct.
(2) A person who is subject to a disqualification contemplated in subsection (1) (b) to (i)
may be nominated for appointment as a councillor, but may only be appointed if at the
time of such appointment he or she is no longer subject to that disqualification.