FPB & MDDA Quarter 2 performance; ICASA Council Chair: briefing; Former Minister of Communications State Capture allegations; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed all in attendance, including the Deputy Minister of Communications, Ms Pinky Kekana, Acting Director-General (ADG) Mr Thabiso Thiti, the Film and Publications Board (FPB), and ICASA Councillors.  Apologies had been received from Minister Nomvula Mokonyane.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee had written to Mr Rubben Mohlaloga requesting him to inform the Committee why it should not remove him as a Councillor and Chairperson of the Council of the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) Council. A long response had been received from his attorneys. The Committee had sought the advice of the Parliamentary Legal Services to assist with the matter and Adv Ebrahim would report to the Committee.

Parliament Constitutional and Legal Services Office (CLSO)

Adv Fatima Ebrahim, Parliamentary Legal Adviser (PLA), stated that on 15 January 2018, Mr Mohlaloga was convicted of a charge of fraud. The conviction stemmed from allegations that Mr Mohlaloga and five others had defrauded the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa in an amount of R6 million that was meant for the benefit of emerging black farmers. Mr Mohlaloga was an ANC Member of Parliament and Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee Agriculture and Land Affairs at the time. Mr Mohlaloga was due to be sentenced on 3 April 2018.  He had indicated through his attorneys that his intention was to appeal the conviction.

On 27 February 2018, the Committee had resolved to proceed with the removal process as per Section 8 of the ICASA Act which provided for the removal of a councillor who had become disqualified in terms of Section 6 (j) of the Act which lists fraud as a disqualification criterion. The Committee invited Mr Mohlaloga to make representation, which he duly did.

The judgement was delivered on 15 January 2018 against six accused persons, including Mr Mohlaloga, who were part of a farming project, Dingwako Farming. According to the judgement, in 2008 Dingwako Farming project applied to the Land Bank for funding in the amount of R6 million.  The money was paid in the trust account of accused no. 5, being the trust account of the attorneys acting on behalf of Dingwako. Accused no. 1, Mr Philemon Mohlahlane testified that he was CEO of the Limpopo Youth Commission while Mr Mohlaloga was Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs in Parliament. They knew each other from the ANC and were neighbours. Later, accused no. 1 became CEO of the Land Bank, and that was when the transaction had occurred. Mr Magwadi Tjia, who was a state witness, testified that Mr Mohlaloga had arranged a meeting in December 2007 between himself, Mr Mohlahlane, Mr Tjia, and accused no. 3, Mr Dinga Nkhwashu who was the attorney who acted on the instruction of accused no 1 and no 2. Following the meeting Mr Tjia and Mr Mohlaloga proceeded to identify a suitable farm to buy with the money they believed that they would receive from the Land Bank and made the necessary application for funding in terms of the AgriBEE scheme.

In January 2008 another meeting took place at Mr Mohlaloga’s home at the time that accused no 1 was CEO of the Land Bank.  He indicated that he could arrange funding of R4 million, and R2 million for the balance of the project. It was not clear from the judgement what the R2 million was for, but Adv Ebrahim assumed it was for implements and related costs in setting up the farm project. At the meeting it was decided that accused no 3 would be the legal adviser for the transaction. Accused no 1 stated that Mr Mohlaloga could not apply for the funding himself because at the time he was an MP and Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs and had some oversight duty over the Land Bank. It was decided that Mr Tjia, who became state witness on the court case, would make the application. Accused no 1 explained the process of making the application to the co-accused who decided to call the project Dingwako.

Another state witness, Mr Khutso Mosoma, who worked for the Land Bank, testified that he had received instruction from accused no 1 to prepare the requisition for payment of the funds. The money was received in February 2008 and paid into the trust account of the law firm. There was no dispute that the monies had been received. In subsequent months various payments were made to Mr Tjia’s personal account which, in his testimony, he said was meant to be a loan. However, no debt acknowledgement was signed. Mr Tjia said he had also borrowed money from the R6 million that had been paid out. In 2008 Dingwako purchased a farm for R2.3 million instead of the R4 million farm contained in the application for the loan. They purchased a different farm to the one identified in the funding application. It appeared from the judgement that the reason might have been that an audit process had started to ensure all documentation was in order. As, at that point no farm had been purchased, the accusation was that there had been a hurried effort to identify and purchase a farm.

Accused no 1 denied all knowledge of a meeting, facilitating the loan, or even knowing Mr Mosoma. He admitted to meeting Mr Tjia at a braai and insisted that he only gave him the cell phone numbers of people who could assist him in obtaining funding for the project. Mr Mohlaloga confirmed, in his testimony, that he was indeed Chairperson of the Committee on Agriculture at he time. He stated that he was not aware that he was not entitled to a grant in terms of the manual governing the grants, and he admitted to assisting accused no 1 with the payment of the legal fees. He also confirmed that he did receive some money from the R6 million but testified that the payments constituted a loan. He confirmed that he did not sign any loan agreement, and at the time the matter went to trial, he had not paid any monies back. He admitted that he had used the monies to purchase two BMW vehicles. In terms of his representation, he submitted that the magistrate had very little regard to the legal issues raised during the trial and based the judgement on the version of the two state witnesses and had not considered that Mr Mohlaloga’s version could be reasonably be true. Mr Mohlaloga was appealing the judgement of the court.

Mr Mohlaloga argued that he did not have the necessary ‘Mens rea’ – intention to commit a crime – and a crime was only a crime where it was committed with intent. In his version, because the money was meant to be a loan, there was no intention of defrauding the Land Bank, and therefore, without intent, he could not be guilty of the offence. He was of the view that he enjoyed a reasonable prospect of success on appeal and that he had served ICASA with distinction during 2016 and 2017, and for that reason he had been appointed as Chairperson. He requested that he be placed on precautionary suspension with full pay, which would strike a balance between the rights and duties of ICASA and the Committee. He also alleged that the opportunity given to him to provide representation was lip service, and that the decision had already been predetermined by the Committee. He asked that the transcript where the matter was last discussed be provided to him.

The Committee had discretion, and in applying the discretion, the threshold was very high. Adv Ebrahim pointed out that, in the ICASA Act, it was clear that people who had been found guilty of fraud could not be considered for appointment. In the section dealing with disqualification, the Act used the word “may”, and discretion was supported by the fact that a report needed to go to the National Assembly (NA) to make a decision. 

Representation was invited to consider why, despite a conviction, a councillor should not be removed. It was not in the ambit of the Committee to debate the merits of the conviction. The Committee was not a court of law. The Committee accepted that a guilty verdict had triggered the removal process. In considering the matter, regard needed to be taken of the following: the offence was committed at the time that Mr Mohlaloga was in a position of public office as Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture. There was, therefore, a conflict not only in the purview of the judgement of the court, but would also have been a conflict of interest within the parliamentary sphere and the question should be asked whether the interactions were declared in any way to the Committee.  The offense involved public funds intended for poor black farmers and the complainant was a state institution, the Land Bank.  The nature of fraud was extremely serious and threw into question the integrity of Mr Mohlaloga and his ability to manage ICASA, notwithstanding whether it was a loan or indeed a fraudulent transaction.  The request by Mr Mohaloga to be placed on suspension carried with it financial implications and could affect the stability of the board.

Discussion

Ms P van Damme (DA) thanked Adv Ebrahim for her representation and said she agreed with most of the points she had presented. She said the Committee was not questioning the merit of the decision of the court. The Committee need to limit itself to the ICASA Act which was very clear in Section 8.1 (f) on the removal from office if a person became disqualified as contemplated in Section 6.1, and Mr Mohlaloga had become disqualified under Section 6.1 and was no longer fit to hold office.

Ms van Damme said it was not up to the Committee to make a judgement as to whether Mr Mohlaloga had being a good ICASA chairperson or not. The requirement listed in the Act did not say Parliament should decide whether a person was a good councillor or not.

The Chairperson asked if the Committee wanted to engage in a discussion on what they would do now in the meeting, or whether they wanted to discuss the issue at a later stage.

Mr M Kalako (ANC) said that the Committee should conclude the matter whilst all the Members were in the Committee. There was no need to postpone the matter.

The Chairperson said that even in the previous Committee meeting, it had been very clear that the conviction and judgement was enough to release Mr Mohlaloga from his contract. The Chairperson said that Ms van Damme was correct that the Committee was not contesting the judgment but would stick to the mandate of Parliament.

The Chairperson noted that during the interview process for ICASA councillors, Mr Mohlaloga’s fraud issue had been raised by Members, and at the time, because there was no conviction, they had proceeded to interview him.

Mr R Tseli (ANC) said it was very clear from the presentation that Mr Mohlaloga’s reasons were not sufficiently convincing for the Committee not to go the route that they had decided to take during the last Committee meeting where they had discussed the matter of Mr Mohlaloga. The Committee needed to take a decision as previously agreed. They had given Mr Mohlaloga an opportunity to explain why the Committee should not remove him, and the matter needed to be concluded. The Committee was not a court of law and was not necessarily interested in technicalities that might arise.

Mr N Xaba (ANC) asked what Adv Ebrahim’s view was since Mr Mohlaloga alleged that the money he had received was a loan.  Perhaps he wanted to hide behind the loan. Mr Xaba asked if the loan was authentic, and what the nature of the loan was.

The Chairperson said that Mr Xaba’s question was just for information purposes because the Committee was not getting involved in the issues he had raised.

Adv Ebrahim said the judgement said that Mr Mohlaloga’s contention was that the money was a loan that he had intended to pay back but no loan agreement had been signed. There was no evidence tendered in court to indicate anything external that it was indeed a loan. The court had found that the argument could not be believed because there was no evidence supporting his claims.

Ms Pinky Kekana, Deputy Minister, Department of Communications noted on behalf of the Department what the Committee was saying and said the Committee had taken the Department into its confidence when it had embarked on the process to remove Mr Mohlaloga. The Minister was also empowered by the ICASA Act to act accordingly.

The Chairperson said that, according to the legislation, the Committee was not supposed to keep someone who was disqualified by the Act, but they had allowed him an opportunity to make representation as to why he should not be disqualified.

The Chairperson said the Committee could also request the Minister to suspend Mr Mohlaloga, but once the Committee had kick-started the process of removal, suspension fell away.

Mr M Maleka, Researcher, Portfolio Committee on Communications, said that Section 8.3 dealt with the Minister in terms of the suspension process. In terms of the rules of the National Assembly (NA) 8.2 said “A councillor may be removed from office only on a finding to that effect by the NA, and the adoption by the NA of a resolution calling for the removal of the councillor from office”. Section 8.3 of the ICASA Act said the Minister may suspend a councillor from office at any time after the start of the proceedings by the NA for the removal of a councillor; must remove that councillor from office upon adoption by the NA of the resolution calling for removal of that councillor; and must suspend the councillor from office at any time after the start of the proceedings by the NA for the removal of the councillor upon request by the NA. 

The Chairperson asked Adv Ebrahim to simplify the two processes for the Committee so that when she gave the summary of the report for the Committee to take a decision, they were clear on the issue of suspension and removal.

Adv Ebrahim said there were two methods of suspension. The first was that once the Committee had started its proceedings, as done in the previous meeting, at that point the Minister enjoyed discretion as to whether, at that point, she wished to suspend Mr Mohlaloga. The second way of suspending was that, whilst the Committee was deliberating the matter, it could, via the NA, request the Minister to suspend him. This was, however, unnecessary because her understanding was that the report, once sent to the NA and passed then the Minister, would terminate Mr Mohlaloga’s membership. There was, therefore, no need for suspension.

The Chairperson said it was clear now. The discussion was suspended while Adv Ebrahim was working on the report that would be drafted and sent to the NA with the Committee’s decision to remove Mr Mohlaloga. Ms Ebrahim would present the final report to the Committee before the meeting was adjourned.
  
Film and Publications Board (FPB)

Ms Kekana introduced the delegation and said as new leadership in the Department they had had an opportunity to engage with FPB, and they would be speaking on some of the pertinent issues that they were dealing with. One of the issues FPB was dealing with was the ‘Inxeba’ issue, and that would be a good precedent of how they would deal with issues of classification going forward. The Chief Financial Officer would present on the financial performance of FPB in their Second Quarter Report.

Ms Sarah Mangena, Deputy Chairperson, FPB introduced the delegation.  Other board members had said they would be joining the meeting, but she did not see any of them, besides one other board member who had arrived late for the meeting.

Ms Mangena said the Chairperson of the board was unable to attend the Committee meeting because a member of her family was in hospital undergoing an operation. Other board members could not attend because they were in full time employment. One of the board members that should have attended, could not attend because she had to make a presentation to the Gauteng legislature.

Mr Sandile Nene, Acting Chief Executive Officer (CEO) said FPB had achieved 85% of its Quarter 2 targets. 52.2% of the annual performance targets were achieved at midterm. The Minister had approved the draft regulation tariffs for gazetting. FPB had participated in more than nine outreach and awareness workshops, reaching 6452 learners and 251 educators in six provinces. FPB had implemented staff salary increases and had signed a two-year agreement with the labour union. FPB had submitted the first draft of the 2018/19 Annual Performance Plan (APP) and had participated in the ICT SADC Ministers’ meeting and the Commonwealth ICT forums, positioning FPB in line with the FPB SADC engagement strategy.

Challenges facing the entity were vacancies in executive and critical posts; staff morale due to salary reduction; delay in the adoption of the Film and Publication Amendment Bill, resulting in regulatory uncertainty.  Other challenges included Over-the-top-content (OTT) service’s resistance to FPB Licensing (Netflix, Amazon).

On the executive recruitments, CEO interviews had been concluded on 30 November 2017, and the council CEO recruitment report had been submitted to the office of the Minister. Interviews for the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) were scheduled for 15 March 2018. Interviews for the Chief Operations Officer (COO) were scheduled for 16 March 2018. Interviews for the Shared Services Executive were scheduled for 05 March 2018, and additional candidates were interviewed on 16 March 2018. The post for Chief Information Officer (CIO) was advertised on 25 February 2018, and the closing date for applications was 11 March 2018.

Mr Vuedzani Matidza, CFO, FPB said the annual budget for FPB was R99.51 million of which 43% or R42.45 million had been spent by the end of Quarter 2, with an available budget of R52.06 million. Committed funds were R4.98 million.

Discussion
Ms Van Damme said that the Deputy Chairperson had indicated that there were other board members who would be coming. She asked if flight tickets had been purchased for those members because the Committee had raised an issue with the FPB only sending a select elite to appear before Parliament every time.  FPB had too many people in acting positions and Ms van Damme asked what the deal was in appointing a CEO since interviews had been completed in February 2018. She said that there was a lot of disorganisation in FPB with targets not being met, and that was an issue the Minister would have to act on.  Ms Van Damme asked for an action plan regarding the ‘inxeba’ court date on 28 March 2018.

The Chairperson said the issue of people not appearing before Parliament and tickets being bought for them linked to fruitless and wasteful expenditure and asked the Deputy Minister and Deputy Chairperson to address the matter.

Ms V van Dyk (DA) said there was no mention of irregular expenditure for the period under review and asked FPB to elaborate.  She asked how much had been spent on consultants for the period under review.

Mr Xaba said the process of reviewing appeared too often and it seemed like FPB would not be doing anything about it.

Ms M Matshoba (ANC) welcomed the report and asked why there was no breakdown of provinces where workshops had been conducted.  She asked what the reasons were for not achieving 100% of their targets.

Mr R Tseli (ANC) asked if the presentation was not a copy and paste of the one discussing the draft Amendment Bill which had already undergone parliamentary processes. FPB indicated that the issue had not been addressed yet.

Mr Tseli asked how FPB had 100% completion of tasks when there had been failure in Quarter 2. It appeared to be a contradiction.  Why had FPB resubmitted the 2017/18 annual performance plan?
For oversight purposes, Mr Tseli needed to know where the workshops had been held per province.  The Committee was not going about its work just to tick the boxes. FPB needed to deal with previous issues raised by the Committee.

Mr W Madisha (COPE) noted that the issue of staff morale was a sequel to salary deductions. He asked what FPB had done to improve staff morale. He asked if FPB had been unable to deal with issues they had highlighted in their presentation and whether they had identified problems that the Committee could assist with in an effort to move the organisation forward.

Responses

Ms Mangena said Ms Yoliswa Mahlatsi was a government employee, and other board members had permanent jobs. Ms Mahlatsi was presenting at the Gauteng legislature. Her flight ticket had been booked but had to be cancelled due to the commitment. She was not sure about other board members.

Mr Matidza said that flights for three council members had been booked. When one of the members had cancelled, FPB had informed the travel agency and it would not be billing the organisation for the canceled flight.

Mr Nene recalled that when FPB had employed staff members in 2016, there had been an error where the organisation had not paid staff members’ medical aid. FPB had an agreement in writing that they would pay the outstanding amounts for medical aid costs, and pension fund benefit. The issue had affected staff morale because monies had been deducted from their salaries, but contributions had not been made toward their medical aid and pensions.

Mr Nene said when the entire executive had left, there had been no succession arrangement in place, and some of the projects had been led by those executives that had left.  Mr Nene said that when critical employees left FPB, including the legal department, the entity relied on consultants to provide those service. 

Ms Nthabiseng May, Acting COO, informed Mr Tseli that the focus for workshops was in all nine provinces. They were first targeting parents and then young children.

Mr Matidza told Ms van Dyk that consultant fees were at R309 000 as at Quarter 3. There had been a significant reduction. The legal department was the main user of consultants.

The Chairperson asked what FPB had done right to reduce expenditure on consultants.

Mr Matidza replied that FPB had ensured skills transfer on Pastel, and reporting was done in-house as opposed to by consultants. Operational consultants were also reduced.

Mr Nene added that a legal manager had been employed who would be starting his employment on the first of April 2018.

Mr Nene said the issue of inxeba would be finalised in the court case on 27 March 2018.  Inxeba had been classified by a CEO who had led the operational team, a Chairperson who led the board, and an appeals tribunal. FPB was not defending anything. The Board had given the court their own classification rating for the film and how they had arrived at it.

Ms Mangena noted that FPB was not against what the appeals tribunal had done. The appeals tribunal had to understand that FPB also had their own role and if there was a problem, then it was important for both parties to sit down and address the problem.

Mr Nene said FPB had incurred costs as an institution because there were legal fees involved when taken to court by a complainant. He was convinced that the coaching target would be achieved at the end of the financial year. In terms of the way it was structured, it was supposed to be achieved in Quarter 2, but was only achieved in Quarter 4 because the university had not submitted the SBD forms timeously.

Ms van Damme asked for the legal costs incurred in hiring Bowman Gilfillan and others in the removal of the previous CEO.

Mr Xaba said that the breakdown of success stories regarding provinces would be appreciated so that members could share with their constituencies. He asked for clarity.  Was the Committee was discussing Quarters two or four?

The Chairperson said that when Members requested that certain issues be addressed at the following meeting, it was important for the administration to take note so that they addressed the noted issues before beginning the new briefing.

Ms van Dyk said the Committee was supposed to be going on oversight to find out about issues with the CFO and CEO and asked if this would still be going ahead.  She asked if the presentation was dealing with Quarter 2 or 3.

Mr Xaba had heard that a service consultant was working with FPB and asked if that was true.

The Chairperson replied that the Committee had requested approval from the House Chair to go on an oversight visit but the request had been denied because there was no budget. The oversight visit would have to be placed on the agenda for the new financial year beginning in April.

Mr Nene promised that the breakdown by province would be provided to the Committee in writing. He added that proper processes had been followed in appointing the service consultant.

Ms May informed the Committee that there was a trademark policy focusing on online DVDs only.

Mr Matidza told Ms van Damme that FPB had paid Sakhela Cabiso R450 000, and about R190 000 to Bowman Gilfillan.

The Chairperson said he did not like the use of ‘about’. He wanted the actual amount paid.

Mr Matidza said he would confirm and get back to the Committee.

Mr Nene informed Members that the presentation was dealing with Quarter 2.

Ms Kekana stated that she shared the concern of the Committee. She had not seen the full complement of the FPB Board and the main issue was that some of the board members were government officials with full time jobs. It was the Department’s responsibility to beef up administration in FPB to address capacity issues. Ms Kekana added that the outcome of the court proceedings would assist FPB to identify where the shortcomings were regarding the tribunal. Ms Kekana said she would ensure that whatever information was requested during a Committee meeting was addressed in writing to the Committee through the Committee Secretary.

Report of Portfolio Committee on Communications on the removal of Mr Rubben Mohlaloga

Mr Thembinkosi Ngoma read the report: The Committee moved to remove Mr Rubben Mohlaloga as ICASA Council Chairperson based on the guilty conviction of fraud.

Mr Tseli said he agreed with the report but reiterated that the Committee was not a court of law and they should rather avoid going into too much detail.

The Chairperson agreed, noting that issues that were important were Mr Mohlaloga’s admission in court.

Ms Van Damme also emphasised the importance of not going into detail so that they did not create any loopholes for crafty lawyers.

Mr Xaba said the Committee rejected Mr Mohlaloga’s request to be placed on suspension and noted that he had admitted guilt in a court of law.

Adv Ebrahim said Mr Mohlaloga had made a request for suspension, citing that the Committee could make a decision on that, but the Committee rejected the request as it was not a court of law.

Mr Madisha said he agreed with all the Members to suspend Mr Mohlaloga, and the issue needed to be closed.

Mr Kalako explained the issue of suspension was not for the Committee to decide. That was the purview of the Minister. The Committee only dealt with removal.

The Chairperson asked for Members to adopt to the report.

Mr Kalako proposed the adoption of the report, with amendments. Ms van Damme seconded the proposal.  The Committee adopted the report, with amendments.

Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA)

Ms Kekana informed the Committee that a lot of people were in acting positions and that was something that MDDA was attempting to address. Ms Kekana said MDDA would be focusing on how they could make community radio stations sustainable.

Mr Musa Sishange, Acting Chairperson, MDDA, introduced his delegation and apologised on behalf of Ms Martina Della Togna who had left the meeting due to logistical issues. An invitation had been extended to those board members who resided in Cape Town so that no costs would be incurred.

Ms Cheryl Langbridge, Communications Manager, MDDA, said the Committee had, in their last engagement with MDDA, raised concerns in respect of the vacancy rate, performance contracts, and performance reporting. Two positions had been filled in Quarter 4 and Quarter 1 bringing the vacancy rate down to 67% at the end of Quarter 2 as opposed to the 50% at the end of 2015/16. Focus had been placed on staff signing performance contracts. 100% of staff had signed their performance contracts by the end of Quarter 2. All the key performance indicators were reviewed for MDDA’s 2018/19 APP in consultation with DoC in terms of the SMART principle.

In Quarter 1 and Quarter 2, MDDA had disbursed R22.92 million to community broadcast media and small commercial and community print projects. An unqualified audit opinion was achieved for the 2016/17 financial year, maintaining an unbroken record of unqualified audits. A permanent Human Resource (HR) and Corporate Affairs Manager, and HR Officer had been appointed and would intensify recruitment. Two new board members had been appointed, and three candidates were recommended for Presidency approval. Staff competency assessments had been completed, and personal development plans drawn up.

As the MDDA board could not form a quorum at the board meeting held on 29 September 2017, Quarter 2 applications from community and small commercial media projects for financial support could not be approved. That was the core MDDA activity – supporting community and small commercial media projects. The project approvals were, however, approved at the board meeting of 13 October 2017 and were deemed to have fallen into Quarter 3 and, therefore, had to be reported on in the Quarter 3 report. As a result, no targets were achieved for Quarter 2 programmes 2.1 and 2.2, impacting on overall MDDA performance for Quarter 2. Despite the non-quorate of the board meeting and targets not being achieved, MDDA showed a slight improved performance for Quarter 2 of 50% achievement of its 30 targets, as compared to 33% of targets achieved for Quarter 1.

The Chairperson asked Committee Members if the presentation could be stopped there and questions asked on the presentation because Members had read through the presentation before the Committee meeting. There was an outstanding item on the agenda, and the Committee was facing a time constraint.

Members agreed.

Discussion

Mr Tseli said one of the issues the Committee had raised, and which had not been addressed, was the support by municipalities and departments. The Committee wanted a report detailing the municipalities and departments that were assisting community radio stations, and those that were not. He added that there was no such thing as partially achieved when reporting. A target was either achieved or not achieved.  In terms of the budget, it was important to assist outstanding community radio stations as opposed to only funding new projects. It was also important for the entity to communicate with the public themselves instead of relying on GCIS. How far was MDDA with the issue of irregular expenditure raised by the Auditor-General (AG), and the issue of litigators?

Ms Van Dyk asked how many people were currently suspended in the MDDA and on what grounds they had been suspended. Had the Company Secretary indeed acted as CEO and, if so, who had approved it? The MDDA was in shambles and she suggested that the Committee should order a forensic investigation into the entity.  The Committee should suspend the Acting Chairperson while conducting a proper forensic investigation because he was part of the regime of the previous Chairperson.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would be going to visit MDDA and FPB so that they were fully informed before deciding on the route to take.

Responses

Mr Sishange said MDDA had a report about the departments and municipalities offering support to community radio stations and it would be shared with the Committee. There was a backlog of applications received before the moratorium by ICASA and MDDA was assisting, especially, the success stories that had been on air for many years.  Regarding the AG’s findings, there were concerns about broadcast equipment contracts. Those contracts now went out on tender.

Mr Sishange said that, to his knowledge, only one person was on suspension, but he was not aware that the person was in hospital. If that was the case, then he was sympathetic. Another staff member was in hospital, but that person was not on suspension. A third staff member had been on sick leave and in hospital, but that person was back at work.

The Chairperson said that he did not think the Committee would make progress on the issue of MDDA, which was why it was important to fast track the visit to MDDA and to engage with all the officials while the Committee was on the oversight visit.

Ms Van Dyk said the specific staff member she was referring to had been given five days to respond before being suspended.  The Committee needed to conduct the inquiry so that they could engage with all the officials who were being intimidated.

Discussion on allegations of state capture against former Minister of Communications, Ms Muthambi, as contained in the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA)

The Chairperson read a summary of the report. It could be deduced from the OUTA report that former Minister Muthambi had sent Cabinet decisions and matters to the Guptas, and that the issue needed to be looked at properly by the Committee so that they could take a proper decision.  The other issues raised by OUTA were issues that the Ad Hoc Committee on SABC had dealt with.

Ms van Damme said that she was aware of another inquiry that the Committee already agreed to. That was the inquiry into the MDDA. The term of office of the Chairperson of the MDDA had expired and the inquiry was therefore not necessary because the term of office was over. She added that the inquiry into the former Minister was very important and needed to continue because the matters were extensive. The issue at hand was of great importance and could not be given to the Ethics Committee to deal with Ms Muthambi.

The Chairperson agreed and there were two routes outlined that the Committee needed to discuss and agree on.

Mr Kalako said the letter from the Deputy speaker was vague. The issues raised by OUTA related to Ms Muthambi, and OUTA had opened a case against her.  Ms Muthambi had lied in the Ad Hoc Committee dealing with SABC and he did not understand why her issue was being circulated. The report of the Ad Hoc Committee had made recommendations on actions that had to be taken. It was conclusive. He noted that OUTA had provided evidence and the decision was simple: that Ms Muthambi should be charged and sent to prison. There was no need for an inquiry to investigate. It would be a waste of parliamentary resources.

Mr Xaba said his understanding was that if the Speaker’s letter was not clear, then that would require the Committee to relook the requests put to the Committee. If there were other constitutional bodies looking into the matter, it would not be necessary for the Committee to join in the process, but the Committee’s role needed to be reviewed in terms of how it arrived at its decisions.

The Chairperson said there was a clear report by OUTA on how Ms Muthambi had violated the confidentiality of Cabinet. It fell directly with the Ethics Committee. Secondly, Ms Muthambi had been called to the Ad Hoc Committee on SABC, and its report on what she did was that there, provided evidence. The implementation of the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee was the responsibility of the Speaker. Parliament should refer the issues mentioned in the report to the Ethics Committee of Parliament to act on recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee.

Ms Van Damme said she agreed with Mr Kalako that Ms Muthambi should go to prison. However, the OUTA report had not been dealt with in the SABC inquiry. The Committee needed to press the office of the Speaker to implement the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee to charge Ms Muthambi. Issues mentioned in the OUTA report dealt with matters that fell within the oversight of the Communications Committee and therefore it was important to invite Ms Muthambi, Multi Choice, and ANN7, and after the meeting the Committee could then decide whether to proceed with an inquiry or not.

Mr Madisha said the Committee agreed that charges should be laid against Ms Muthambi, and that extreme consequences should be taken against Ms Muthambi including political exclusion from the fifth Parliament, and even imprisonment if necessary.

Mr Xaba supported the Chairperson’s proposal to refer the matter to the Ethics Committee.

Ms Van Damme said Deputy Chief Justice Zondo’s State Capture Commission of Inquiry did not stop the work of Parliament. If that was the case, then the Committee on Public Enterprises needed to stop their inquiry as well.

Mr Tseli said that it would be wrong for the Committee to take the route of an inquiry on matters that had already been processed by an Ad Hoc Committee of Parliament. He suggested that the Committee, through the Chairperson, refer the matter back to the office of the Speaker.

Mr Kalako said that the Committee had the power to call whoever they pleased and to deal with matters at hand instead of resorting to an inquiry at the first instance. He supported the suggestion to write to the Speaker to ask when she would be acting against those implicated in the recommendation for remedial action.

The Chairperson said the letter from the Deputy Speaker was based on the OUTA report in relation to Ms Muthambi and how she had abused the confidentiality of cabinet. The Committee would be writing to the Speaker to inform her that the matters raised by OUTA was in the ambit of the Speaker and should be referred to the Ethics Committee.  The issues raised in the Ad Hoc Committee were also contained in the OUTA report, and the letter would also ask the Speaker what had been done in relation to the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee report.  The Committee would be having a meeting with ANN7, Multi Choice, ICASA, Ms Muthambi, MDDA, and other role players and everything would be finalised in the second term.

Members agreed with the Chairperson.

The Chairperson said the letter would be sent to the Speaker within the next 24 hours.

The meeting was adjourned.