SABC Board: Short-listing of Candidates for Interviews

Meeting report

The Chairperson stated that members had been given 10 days to review the CVs and had been asked to streamline the names and circulate them. Members had responded positively and had already circulated names informally.

He noted that the CV of Dr Melanie Chait had been misplaced and did not appear on the list of applications. Since this was an error on the part of the Committee, he proposed that she be included for consideration in the short-listing process. Ms Charlene Deacon’s CV had been received on time but had been sent in a format Parliament’s computers could not access. This technical problem had since been addressed. He asked members to include this CV for consideration as well.

Members agreed to these proposals and Ms Michelle Chait and Ms Charlene Deacon were added to the list of candidates for short-listing.

The Chairperson asked members for suggestions on what the short-listing process should be.

Ms J Kilian (COPE) suggested that members go through the alphabetical list of names and determine to what extent the candidates had been disqualified. COPE would like to support some of the names on the other lists (lists other than the alphabetical list, on which some of the previously disqualified candidates appeared). She was not sure what the legal position was and whether people could be disqualified based on the specifications in the advertisement. The advert had specified that candidates should have a letter of nomination, a letter of acceptance and a CV for consideration by the Committee. There were no specific prescriptions according to the Broadcasting Act. The decision on this would impact on the candidates eligible for short-listing.

Ms P de Lille (ID) proposed that the Committee should extend the short-list to include 30 candidates for interviews. She motivated that although this might take more time, they had a number of good candidates to consider.

Mr N van der Berg (DA) suggested that the process should start with the consideration of common ground between parties – i.e. candidates they already agree on. This would streamline the process.

Adv J de Lange (ANC) stated that the Committee should be careful and specifically guard against possible accusations of bias. The short-listing process could create the impression of bias. Since this was a public process, the Committee should be careful about how much they talked about the merits of the candidates before the interviews. He added that Mr van der Berg’s suggestion was a good way to limit the perception of bias.

Mr S Swart (ACDP) endorsed Mr de Lange’s views. The people who had applied should not have cause/grounds to have the short-list reviewed. There was always scope for informal discussion and he felt that an informal process was potentially the way forward. He agreed to 30 names for the short-list and felt that they should have as many names as possible for a fully inclusive process. This would be a good basis for an informal discussion process.

The Committee agreed to a maximum of 30 names for the short-list.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee could adjourn for an informal process. Parties should feel free to call for this when there was a need to caucus.

The issue of procedure should be discussed. The advert specifically stated certain criteria (letter of nomination, letter of acceptance and attached CV) and the law was less specific. There were instances where one or two of the three requirements were not met. Others had complied fully with the ad. Ms Kilian had noted that according to the legislation, nothing precluded the Committee from accepting all the names.

This was one area where the Committee could be accused of bias.

Ms de Lille proposed that the Committee should be guided by the Act. The Committee should comply with the provisions of the Act.

The Chairperson responded that the Committee was obligated to comply with the Act as far as they could. There was no fundamental problem with this.

Mr Kholwane replied that in dealing with the SABC, members should remember that this was the one of the most respected institutions in South Africa. When evaluating candidates for the Board of the SABC, part of the consideration should be focused on the integrity and responsibility of the person. When the nominees failed to comply with the simple criteria stated in the advert, could members expect them to execute their duties as SABC Board members well? He asked on what basis nominees could be evaluated if their CVs were not submitted. He felt that making a decision to short-list someone, simply because they were well known, was the wrong basis for short-listing candidates. Members could not be expected to short-list without the CV. This was clearly stated in the advert.

Further, he felt that if a person could not get someone else to nominate them, this indicated a lack of confidence in the ability of the individual to be on the SABC Board. Nominees who had not send in a letter of acceptance were also a matter of concern. As much as it might be perceived as bias, it was irresponsible to appoint people who did not comply with all the requirements.

Ms Kilian replied that many prominent South Africans had been nominated without their knowledge. Though they were aware of the nomination, they did not necessarily know that the letter of acceptance and CV were prescribed by the advertisement. COPE had not made any nominations, as they feared the possibility that their nominations would be a "kiss of death" for the person's chance to be appointed. Clearly the lack of a CV was a problem as there would be no basis to evaluate individuals. She suggested that the Committee go through the list and filter out those nominees who did not comply with the requirements of the advert. She suggested that the people who did not comply should be contacted and informed of the areas in which their application did not comply with the advertisement, in order to protect the Committee from accusations of bias. The Committee could short-list 30 names in the interim and add other names as the responses were received.

The Chairperson responded that a list had been prepared of all the areas of compliance with the advertisement. This would be provided to members. The Committee needed to take a decision in principle.

The Chairperson noted that he would be placed in a difficult position if he had to explain why exceptions were made. As the advert was very clear and was well publicised, he felt that adhering to it was the only rational way to approach the process.

Mr Kholwane felt that COPE wanted to open up the process. He added that there was no separate law for prominent persons. The nominators should have informed the nominees of the requirements. He had no problem with going through the list as suggested.

Ms de Lille pointed out that the advertisement did not explicitly state that non-compliance with all the requirements would result in disqualification. She asked if Parliament had contacted those whose applications were lacking in some areas, to allow them an opportunity to meet the requirements. The onus should have been on Parliament as they were not explicit in the advertisement.

She added that the Committee should learn from this experience and should be more specific in the advertisements that follow. They should clearly state that non-compliance with any of the provisions of the advertisement would result in disqualification - thereby placing the onus on the applicants. The process was not handled properly in general. She had had problems when some of the nominee information was lacking and navigating the two summary lists of candidates had proved challenging. In future members should receive all the information simultaneously. She suggested that the Committee review the exceptions.

Ms Noluthando Skaka, Committee Secretary, stated that she had responded to applicants to confirm receipt in the cases where all the requirements were met and had informed people of the areas of deficiency in the cases where they had not complied. The individuals were given the opportunity to comply. Upon prompting by the Chairperson, she confirmed that in spite of this, nothing had been forthcoming.

Mr de Lange commented that although the law did not spell out the process, the Committee was fully entitled to prescribe a process. The problem with this approach was that if the process was ever challenged, there was no guarantee that the courts would uphold it. The requirement of a letter of nomination, letter of acceptance and CV should be generally acceptable but there was no guarantee of this. The Committee could not allow the perception that they were opening up the process as it set a bad precedent and allowed for further challenges to inclusion. He suggested that those on the list should be considered and it would simply count against them in the short-listing process if they had not complied. Personally he agreed that he was not in favour of short-listing someone who had not complied with the basic requirements of the advertisement. He called for flexibility in the short-listing of 30 names. The Committee could deal with exceptions afterward. If they dealt with the exceptions selectively at this point in the process, it opened the Committee up to the perception of bias.

The Chairperson responded that the Committee, as a rule, had not considered any of the late nominations. The nominees who had not complied had been contacted and had still not complied. Based on this, he felt the Committee could not make exceptions. As the Chairperson, he would not be able to defend such exceptions. He suggested that they simplify the matter by considering only those who had provided a letter of nomination, letter of acceptance and a CV, in line with the advertisement. He was concerned about using a person's prominence as the only criteria for evaluation. He asked if members agreed to this suggestion.

Ms Kilian stated that she had not intended to open up the process. Her concern had been based on whether the Committee had made every effort to alert nominees to the problems. She was satisfied that this had been done. She agreed to proceed according the Chairperson's suggestion.

Mr van der Berg responded that the CVs should be used as the grounds for consideration. The Broadcasting Act provided guidance as to the requirements for a person to be part of the SABC Board and CVs should be evaluated according to this. He provided the Democratic Alliance’s preferred nominations and said that the list had been circulated to members:

DA nominations:
Johan Botha
Phillipa Green
Jonathan Jansen
Noluthando Gosa
Daniel Venter
William Rowland
Daniel Plaatjies
Michael le Cordeur
Christina Landman
Frederick van Zyl Slabbert
John Matisonn
Danfred Titus
Melanie Chait
Mac du Preez
Phyllis Dannhouser
Mamphela Ramphele (provided she accepted the nomination)
Moose Burger
Kenneth Herold
Phumlani Myakayaka
Hope Zinde

Ms De Lille read out the preferred nominations of the Independent Democrats:

ID nominations:
Mamphela Ramphele
John Matisonn
Siphiwe Nodwele
Mpho Tsedu
William Gumede
Clement Mannya
Frederick van Zyl Slabbert
Eric Nhlapo
Devandiren Pillay
Tebogo Makgatho Mello           
Jane Barrett
Nonkosi Cetywayo
Sembie Danana
Max du Preez
Zola Fihlani
Cedric Gina
Desmond Golding
Peter Harris
David Lewis
Barbara Masekela
Sheila Mmusi
Felleng Sekha

Mr van den Berg asked for a copy of this list.

Mr Swart (ACDP) noted that the ACDP nominations list overlapped with the other lists in many places:

ACDP nominations:
Frederick van Zyl Slabbert
Phillipa Green
Danfred Titus
Micheal Louis
Christina Landman
Noluthando Gosa
Gerbrand Bothma
Mamphela Ramphele
Hope Zinde
Phumelani Majoja (not on alphabetical list)

The Chairperson noted that Phumelani Majoja was not on the Committee’s lists (the alphabetical list and CV list).

Mr Swart responded that he would make the CV available to members.

The Chairperson responded that the Committee would come back to this issue.

Ms Kilian noted that COPE had added Frederick van Zyl Slabbert and Mamphela Ramphele to COPE’s list of preferred nominations:

COPE nominations:
Frederick van Zyl Slabbert
Mamphela Ramphele
Philippa Green
Sheila Mmusi
Felleng Sekha
Zola Fihlani
Clare O'Neil (no acceptance letter noted)
Max du Preez
Jonathan Jansen
William Rowland
Danfred Titus
Phyllis Dannhouser
Andile Mbeki
Babalwa Ngonyama
William Gumede
Lieza Louw
Motsehoha Madumise
Sibongile Shongwe
Amanda Buzo-Gqoboka

Ms Kilian pointed out the provision made for additional female nominees. The COPE list had been circulated to all members.

Mr Zondi (IFP) read out the Inkatha Freedom Party’s preferred nominations:

IFP nominations:
Desmond Golding
Bheki Khumalo
Tinyiko Maluleke
Andile Mbeki
Gcina Mhlope
Christom Mkhize
Amritchand Nanackchand
Mamphela Ramphele
Govin Reddy
Sam Tshabalala
Frederick van Zyl Slabbert
Suzanne Vos
Mohammed Bhabha
Antjie Krog
Baldwin Ngubane
Pitika Ntuli
Rafiq Rohan
Phyllis Dannhouser
Peter Druchen

Mr Kholwane (ANC) said the African National Congress’s preferred nominations were:

ANC Nominations:
Jane Barrett (Labour)
Nonkosi Cetywayo (Legal)
Sembie Danana (Journalism and Corporate Governance)
Zola Fihlani (Finance and Auditing)
Cedric Gina (Labour and Legal)
Desmond Golding (Finance)
Peter Harris (Legal and Competition Commission Background)
Khotso Khumalo
David Lewis
Barbara Masekela
Tebogo Makgatho-Mello           
Sheila Mmusi
Haroun Moolla
Nkomotane Motsepe
Baldwin Ngubane
David Niddrie
Clare O'Neil
Ntebo Peri
Felleng Sekha
Tselane Tambo

Halfway through reading out the list specifying the areas of experience, Mr Kholwane indicated that he would stop reading out the areas of experience to save time but that this information appeared on the ANC list.

The Chairperson asked for the ANC list to be circulated to the other parties.

Ms L Mazibuko (DA) remarked that she was in favour of noting the reasons for making nominations. She asked if all the parties could look at their lists and note the major qualifications of their nominees. The Committee could then compile a list of qualifications, in compliance with the Broadcasting Act. She asked if it was possible to do this immediately.

Mr Kholwane agreed that they had to comply with the legislation.

The Chairperson responded that it would have helped if this had been done beforehand. The Committee had approximately 60 names. He asked members how they wished to proceed.

Mr van den Berg suggested that they start by looking at the names they had in common. This would be a good start.

Ms Kilian disagreed that they should compile a new list. She proposed that the Committee consider the nominees under certain headings according to the Broadcasting Act. This would indicate where they were short of nominees in a particular area (broadcasting policy and technology, broadcasting regulation, media law, frequency planning, business practice and finance, marketing, journalism, entertainment and education, social and labour issues)

Ms R Moratua (ANC) disagreed that this approach would be beneficial. The short-listing process was aimed at looking at the commonalities between the parties' nominations. The Committee should start by looking at the names they have in common. She felt that that COPE proposal was a step back.

The Chairperson responded that all the parties had reasons for their nominations. Recreating the lists would be difficult. He added that parties could motivate for their candidates as the Committee proceeded.

Adv de Lange asked if a smaller committee could be formed to look at this. He was concerned that motivating for people in a public forum could create grounds for challenges or review of the final short-list later. The process was sound up to this point. He felt the Committee should close the proceedings to the public in order to finalise the list.

Ms Moratua agreed to Adv de Lange's proposal.

Ms de Lille stated that she accepted all the names the parties had in common as being seconded. She proposed that the Committee accept all the names that had been “seconded”.

The Chairperson proposed that the Committee adjourn and that the task team meet to get things done in a more orderly manner. The Committee would reconvene and take a final decision at that time.

The meeting was closed to the public.

The Committee did not reconvene in an open session. The short-list, consisting of 31 nominees was agreed upon in the closed session:

1  Ms Jane Barrett        
2  Adv Nonkosi Princess Cetywayo       
3  Mr Sembie Danana   
4  Mr Max du Preez      
5  Mr Zola Luxolo  Fihlani          
6  Mr Cedric Sabelo Gina          
7  Mr Desmond Khalid Golding 
8  Ms Philippa Mary Green        
9  Prof William Mervin Gumede 
10  Mr Peter John Harris           
11  Mr Kenneth Herold  
12  Mr Khotso Moses  Khumalo
13  Mr David Harris Lewis         
14  Mr Michael Louis     
15  Mr Magatho Anthony Mello    
16  Ms Barbara Joyce Mosima Masekela           
17  Prof Luka David Mosoma    
18  Mr John Matisonn   
19  Mr Andile Milton Mbeki        
20  Prof Sheila Onkaetse Mmusi
21  Mr Haroun Moolla   
22  Mr Nkomotane Clifford Motsepe      
23  Dr Baldwin Sipho (Ben)Ngubane      
24  Mr David Clephane Niddrie  
25  Ms Clare Frances O’Neil      
26  Ms Ntebo Peri        
27  Ms Sibongile Shongwe       
28  Ms Tselane Tambo  
29  Dr Danfred James Titus      
30  Dr Frederick van Zyl Slabbert          
31  Ms Suzanne Christina Vos