National Lotteries Commission Chairperson Vacancy: Committee Recommendation

This premium content has been made freely available

Trade, Industry and Competition

12 March 2021
Chairperson: Mr D Nkosi (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video: Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry, 12 March 2021

ATC210312: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry on the request by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition to make recommendations around the suitability of candidates for the position of the Chairperson of the Board of the National Lotteries Commission, dated 12 March 2021

Mr T Tselane CV
Dr B Pityana CV
Dr MA Madzivhandila CV
Mr AH Trikamjee CV
Mr G Xaba CV
Mr TTC Dlamini CV
Mrs B Ferguson CV
Rev F Chikane

The Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry met on a virtual platform to determine the final three names that would be submitted by the National Assembly to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition for the position of Chairperson of the National Lottery Commission.

Parties presented the names of their selected candidates and following a brief discussion, it was agreed to accept only names of candidates that had been put on the final short list during the previous meeting. Four candidates were nominated by the various parties: Mr Terry Tselane, Mr Themba Dlamini, Dr Muthuhandini Madzivhandila and Dr Barney Pityana. As there was consensus on Mr Tselane’s nomination and four parties had proposed Dr Pityana, it was agreed that those two candidates would be nominated.

In deciding between the latter two candidates, Members referred to the public submissions on the candidates, as called for by Parliament. One submission raised concerns about Dr Madzivhandila’s candidacy. He had been on the board of the Commission at the time that extensive corruption was occurring, when the CEO was alleged to pay paid out enormous amounts of money to his relatives and another board member had been paid R5 million to renovate his luxury home in the North West Province. The submission noted that Dr Madzivhandila had been chairperson of the ethics committee at the time and there were allegations that charities of which he was a director had received millions of Rand in donations from the National Lottery Commission.

The ANC did not believe that a person could be prejudged on the basis of allegations; the EFF concurred. The DA strongly opposed the nomination of someone who could have called out corruption at the Commission, but had not done so, and the ACDP stated that Dr Madzivhandila had not presented a plan for dealing with corruption when invited to do so in the interviews.

The Committee took a vote on who to include as the third candidate.  Seven Members voted in favour of Dr Madzivhandila, with four Members voting against him and in favour of Mr Dlamini.

The Committee adopted a report in which the names of Mr Tselane, Dr Pityane and Dr Madzivhandila would be presented to the National Assembly for recommendation to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition. The DA asked that its objection to the report and the inclusion of Dr Madzivhandila be formally noted. The ACDP abstained from voting.

Meeting report

Opening remarks
The Chairperson opened the meeting and welcomed Members.

The Secretary confirmed attendance and informed the Chairperson that all Members were present, although Mr F Mulder (FF+) had to leave at 9:00.

Discussion on the nomination of three candidates for Chairperson of the National Lottery Commission (NLC)
The Chairperson asked the Secretary whether he had received submissions from the Committee Members.

The Committee Secretary stated that he had a submission from Mr Mulder.

Ms J Hermans (ANC) stated that she had a verbal submission but had been unaware that written submissions were required.

The Chairperson requested that the FF+ submission be put to the Committee.

Mr Mulder nominated the following persons on behalf of the FF+: 1.Mr Terry Tselane, 2. Dr Barney Pityana 3. Rev Chikane.

Ms Hermans, on behalf of the ANC, nominated: 1. Mr Terry Tselane, 2. Dr Muthuhandini Madzivhandila,  3. Dr Barney Pityana.

Mr M Cuthbert (DA) nominated on behalf of the DA: Mr Terry Tselane, Mr Themba Dlamini, Dr Barney Pityana.

Ms Y Yako (EFF) nominated only two candidates on behalf of the EFF: Dr Muthuhandini Madzivhandila and Mr Terry Tselane.

Mr W Thring (ACDP) had understood that the parties had to nominate from the top four names determined by the Committee at the meeting on 10 March 2021 and which Members had put forward to their caucuses. As it appeared that was not the case, he nominated the following candidates on behalf of the ACDP:  Dr B Pityana, Mr T Dlamini, Rev Dr F Chikane.

Mr Z Burns-Ncamashe (ANC) asked to be excused for ten minutes as King Goodwill had passed away and he had to console the king’s family.

The Chairperson excused Mr Burns-Ncamashe and asked him to remain in touch with the whip. He offered condolences on the passing of King Goodwill.

Ms Hermans stated that the Committee had determined to prioritise the top four names but the Committee was now changing the rules and was allowing additional names.

Mr Thring agreed with Ms Hermans’ concern.

The Secretary stated that the decision of the Committee had been to choose three names from the four names proposed at the previous meeting.

Mr D Macpherson (DA) agreed that the Committee had made a decision and that Members had to adhere to that decision.

Mr Thring changed his party’s nomination to Dr Pityana, Mr T Dlamini, Mr T Tselane.

The Chairperson agreed that the Members should adhere to decisions made.

Mr S Mbuyane (ANC) stated that the previous meeting had decided that parties should nominate three names from the four selected by the Committee. The Committee should keep to its decisions.

The Secretary agreed that the name of Dr Chikane should be put aside. He noted that the common names were: Mr T Tselane - five parties; Dr B Pityana - four parties, Dr M Madzivhandila - two parties, Mr T Dlamini - two parties.

He added that it meant that two candidates, Mr Tselane and Dr Pityana, had the support of the majority of the parties and that two candidates were supported by two parties.

Mr Cuthbert agreed that the approach was correct and that the Committee could agree on Mr Tselane and Dr Pityana. He supported Mr Dlamini because he was citing the submission received from the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuses (OUTA) noting Dr Madzivhandila’s membership of the current NLC board and the fact that he had failed to stand up to the corruption in his own ranks, despite chairing the Ethics Committee in the NLC and questionable payments made by the NLC to a non-governmental organisation (NGO) of which Dr Madzivhandila had been a director. He believed that the Committee did not want to send the names of candidates who were tainted in any way. The Committee had to take the public submissions from OUTA, Corruption Watch and others into account as the list sent to the Minister should be free of scandal and should contain the names of those who would be independent and good for the future of the NLC and, hopefully, would restore credibility and integrity within that organisation.

The Chairperson noted that the DA vouched for Mr Dlamini. Other parties should motivate one of the two candidates.

Ms Hermans stated that she was aware that there had been an interview process and a discussion on the report from the interview process. Now that candidates had made it that far, she thought it was disingenuous for parties to raise other matters at that stage. It was not fair. If Dr Madzivhandila had made it that far, he deserved a chance, just like the other candidates deserved a chance. It was unfair to eliminate him at that stage and the ANC was sticking by the three names that it had submitted: Mr Tselane, Dr Madzivhandila and Dr Pityana.

The Chairperson agreed that Ms Hermans was raising an important point because the Committee did not need de-motivation but motivation of candidates. Mr Cuthbert had submitted …

Mr Cuthbert called for a point of order. He believed that no Member of the Committee should be setting parameters for the debate to be held in the meeting. He asked the Chairperson not to skirt around the issues but to call for other parties to motivate their candidates so that the Committee could get on with the business of the day.

The Chairperson noted that the ANC had motivated for Dr Madzivhandila and Mr Cuthbert had demotivated for Mr Dlamini.

Mr Macpherson said that the height of disingenuousness was when people who had not been part of the process started trying to dictate how the process should go forward. That was disingenuousness in its highest form. Because Ms Hermans was not part of the process, she would not have known how the process had unfolded and that there was no way to quiz or interrogate people on the issues because the Members were restricted to very rigid 11 questions. The points raised by him were very valid and were not demotivating. They were points of discussion that the Committee should apply itself to. He was tired of hearing the idea that people deserve chances. Even though they had question marks over their heads, they deserved chances. Those were the same people that told Parliament that the Public Protector should be given a chance and now they wanted to get rid of her because that chance had not quite worked out.

He said that the Committee had every right bestowed on Members by the Constitution to apply their minds to make sure that the people that they nominate to high office were beyond reproach and impeccable in how they had conducted themselves previously, and quite frankly, they had to stop taking chances on people where those chances never worked out. He believed that there were very serious questions marks that had been raised over that gentleman. Dr Madzivhandila had been on the board while the NLC had gone into a complete meltdown through an epic corruption scam that had continued unabated where other board members had been paid R5 million to renovate their luxury homes in the North West, and that was okay.

Mr Macpherson was sorry but he was not prepared to take chances - the DA was not prepared to take chances - on that entity which was teetering on the point of collapse. It was absolutely wrong when a person came and feigned disingenuity when that person had not even been part of the process. That was completely unacceptable and so the DA would stick to its three names. The Committee had a common approach on two: it had to decide on a third name between Dr Madzivhandila and Mr Dlamini. The DA advocated for Mr Dlamini.

Ms Yako stated that the EFF was nominating Dr M Madzivhandila and she concurred with what Ms Hermans had said.

Mr Thring said that when the processes to be followed were set down, it had been very clearly indicated that Members could select from the four names decided upon at the previous meeting.

There was a nine minute break in connectivity: 33:56 to 43:17

Mr Z Burns-Ncamashe (ANC) ...provide with the necessary support and tools so to ensure that the people of SA were served in a manner that would make a significant change in their lives. That would be his take.

Mr Macpherson stated that he had to undo the word salad of the previous speaker as it was just words strung together but none of it had made any sense. The point was that the Committee could not, as Mr Mbuyane would have the Committee believe, decide simply not to consider any of the issues.  That was why the country had ended up with people like Brian Molefe, Dudu Myeni, the Public Protector and many more because no one wanted to hear anything against them. Why had the Committee asked the public to submit comments when it did not want to hear those comments? Why not just say that they were coming to the meeting with a pre-determined list, with a pre-determined name? They had been lobbied by people in the NLC and that was the name and they did not want to hear any comments at all from the public; they did not care about the opposition. They should just be honest in their dishonesty and then the Committee would not have to waste its time or talk about quantitative and qualitative word salads as the Members had just been subjected to. It was wrong, absolutely wrong, to believe that the Committee could not deliberate on any public submissions made about any individual.

Mr Macpherson stated that the facts of the matter were that Dr Madzivhandila had sat on the board, overseen and been a part of the total collapse of the NLC which was mired in corruption, mired in other board members getting millions of Rands to gloss up their own homes. He had sat through the corruption of the CEO with brothers, sisters and everybody else getting money at the expense of the poorest of the poor who needed the money. The Committee was not to discuss the matter because they were “just allegations”.  

He reminded his colleagues that all of the allegations that the DA had raised about the Public Protector had come to be true. At the time, the ANC and the EFF had said that they were going ahead with her nomination as people had to be given chances and it was all under control and now one half of that relationship now wanted to get rid of her and even in that one half, there was another half that wanted to get rid of her. Parliament could not continue to subject the public to people with a massive question mark over their heads. It was not fair. It was a complete abrogation of the responsibilities of Members.

Mr Macpherson reminded Members about what Deputy Chief Justice Zondo had said in the Zondo Commission, which was investigating state capture. He had said that MPs and Parliament had continually not done its job in holding those seeking high office and those seeking power accountable and now the Committee was going down the same road. He predicted that the same people who had agreed to the inclusion of Dr Madzivhandila would throw up their hands and ask how they had got into that situation. How was it possible? How had they allowed a trillion Rand to be looted from the country? The poorest of the poor, the very masses that Mr Mbuyane claimed that he represented, would be the people that Mr Mbuyane would have to go back to and say that he had had nothing to do with it and he was sorry that their money had been stolen and he could not do anything about it.

Mr Macpherson was adamant that that was being dishonest; that was being disingenuous. If the majority of the Committee was quite happy for the process to continue on the same path and not discuss any of the important issues raised, then he promised them that they would all have a very strong case to answer to in the future. He would remind everyone when they all had to sit there to consider how to remove people and consider why corruption had continued that they had simply said that they were not interested in the allegations and to give people a chance. At whose cost did they keep giving chances? It was the poorest of the poor, whom some in the Committee claimed to represent.

Mr Cuthbert asked what the point was of having public participation if their submissions were not taken seriously. There had been no space to discuss the comments during the interviews because Members had to stick to the rubric as discussed and now there was a refusal to discuss the comments. People claimed that it was a People’s Parliament but then did not take the views of the constituents into consideration. People had put through their comments and the Committee had to consider the submissions and take them into account. He did not want to append his name to something when he had been actively warned about somebody by a civil society organisation and he did not wish to be tainted with that same brush. However, it seemed that other Members of the Committee were prepared to be tainted with that same brush.

Mr Cuthbert said that if the Committee considered all submissions that had been put forward as well as the existing prima facia evidence that Members had, then they had to make sure that they did not allow Dr Madzivhandila to proceed. There had been concerns cited about him and it would negligent on the part of the Committee if it allowed him to continue on that list. He did not think that it was right.

Mr Cuthbert noted that when Dr Madzivhandila had been interviewed, he had spoken more about brain damage than about corruption and the institution and how he would fix it. He had spoken about how matters had affected him personally. He understood that people had personal feelings and that was well and good but they had been talking about an institution mired in corruption and he did not have a clear plan to get out of the corruption.

He urged Committee Members to re-consider their position because he did not think that they were considering what had been put before them that day.

Mr Thring said that Mr Burns-Ncamashe had given a speech on research 101, dealing with variables and dichotomous situations and he had his own hypothesis in terms of research methodology and he was welcome to that opinion. Although the ACDP had scored Dr Madzivhandila quite highly, the ACDP had not put forward his name because, in addition to the public comments, Dr Madzivhandila had had an opportunity in the interview itself to state clearly how he could have rectified the situation but he had not indicated his position in relation to the situation. Had he had a position, the ACDP might have put forward his name. But, he had not made use of the opportunity and the ACDP had put forward the name of Mr Dlamini as opposed to that of Dr Madzivhandila.

Ms Hermans stated that the ANC would adhere to the three names submitted because the ANC would not take a decision based on allegations. Just as, according to the DA, there were allegations against Dr Madzivhandila, the ANC had seen a report by Corruption Watch that stated there was no reason why he should not be appointed. The ANC had decided to not go on allegations.

Mr Mulder said that the FF+ was disappointed because he had specifically asked at the previous meeting how the input of the public was to be addressed. In principle, it was not about allegations but about the input of the public. If the Committee did not consider the public’s input, there was no point in asking the public to make submissions. Public comment was being ignored.

The Chairperson commented that the third name would have to be selected on the basis of a vote.

The Secretary said that Members had expressed their views on each name. The names had to be put to a vote.

The Secretary called for support for Dr Madzivhandila.
Ms N Motaung (ANC) - Supported
Ms R Moatshe (ANC) - Supported
Mr Mbuyane - Supported
Ms Hermans - Supported
Mr Thring - Did not support
Ms Yako - Supported
Mr Macpherson - Rejected
Mr Mulder - Against
Mr Cuthbert - Emphatically against
Mr Burns Ncamashe - Supported
The Chairperson- Supported

The Secretary stated that seven Members supported Dr Madzivhandila’s nomination; four Members had voted against his nomination.

The Secretary called for support for Mr Dlamini
Ms Motaung - Against
Ms Moatshe - Against
Mr Mbuyane - Against
Ms Hermans - Against
Mr Thring - Supported
Ms Yako - Against
Mr Macpherson - Supported
Mr Mulder -  Supported
Mr Cuthbert - Supported
Mr Burns Ncamashe - Against
The Chairperson - Against

The Secretary stated that four Members supported Mr Dlamini’s nomination; seven Members had voted against his nomination.

The Secretary said that based on the vote the three names were: Mr Terry Tselane, Dr Barney Pityana, Dr Muthuhandini Madzivhandila.

Mr Mbuyane proposed that the three names be adopted.

The Secretary explained that the meeting was not yet at that point. The Committee had to consider the report to the National assembly and that was what the Committee would have to adopt.

Report to the National Assembly
The secretariat put up the report which would be tabled before the House.

The Secretary read from point 9 onwards which detailed the candidates shortlisted, those selected for the final selection list and the three nominations for the position of Chairperson for the NLC that should be forwarded to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition.

Resolution
Mr Mbuyane proposed that the names of Mr Terry Tselane, Dr Barney Pityana, Dr Muthuhandini Madzivhandila be recommended to the Minister for consideration. Ms Hermans seconded the adoption of the report as tabled.
Mr Macpherson requested that the DA’s objection to the report and, specifically, the third name be noted.
Mr Thring requested that the abstention of the ACDP be noted.

The Secretary stated that he would send the report to the Table Committee that afternoon.

Closing remarks
The Chairperson noted that the Committee had completed its task as it had formalised the recommendations to the Minister.

The Secretary confirmed that the process had been completed.

The programme for the following week was a meeting on 16 March 2021 at which there would be a discussion on the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and a draft of the Committee quarterly report would be presented to Members.

The meeting was adjourned.
 

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: