National Lotteries Commission Chairperson Vacancy: shortlisting finalised

Meeting report

Opening remarks
The Chairperson welcomed everyone to the meeting, noting that all Members appeared to be in attendance, with a couple having connectivity problems. The microphone of Mr D Macpherson (DA) was not working. He would comment on the chatline, if need be.

The agenda indicated that the only item was the consideration of nominated candidates to be shortlisted for position of the Chairperson of National Lottery Commission (NLC).

Ms J Hermans (ANC) queried the wording of the agenda as it implied that consideration would be given to the shortlist and that there would be another process to finalise the list.

The Secretary recommended that the word “Formal” be added to the agenda which would imply that it was the final shortlisting document.

Ms Y Yako (EFF) stated that she had not received a document on the procedure regarding the way forward as she had been promised at the previous meeting.

The Chairperson indicated that the document was part of the day’s proceedings and that he would get to it.

The Secretary stated that he would flight the document during the meeting and take colleagues through it.

The Chairperson agreed that the document could be flighted towards the end of the proceedings.

Shortlists proposed by parties
The Chairperson recalled the events of the previous meeting. It had been agreed that six candidates would be placed on the shortlist. He noted that three parties had supplied their proposals for the shortlist but that some of the parties had not submitted lists. He requested the secretariat to provide a recap of the situation.

The Secretary agreed that the meeting had decided that the shortlist would contain six names and that the three parties present had supplied their nominations. Two parties were not present and it had been agreed that they would be requested to submit names. He flighted all lists from the political parties, including the additional lists of names submitted by the FF+ and ACDP on the day of the previous meeting:

ANC
Ms Precious N Sibiya
Rev Barney Pityana
Rev Frank Chikane
Dr Muthuhandini Madzivhandila
Mr Terry Tselane
Mr William E Huma
 

DA
Mr Dlamini Themba
Ms Beryl Ferguson
Rev Barney Pityana
Mr Gugulethu Xaba
Mr Terry Tselane
Mr Ashwin Trikamjee

EFF
Dr Muthuhandini Madzivhandila
Mr Terry Tselane

FF+
Mr Ashwin Trikamjee
Dr Barney Pityana
Ms Beryl Ferguson
Mr Gugulethu Xaba
Mr Terry Tselane
Mr Themba Dlamini

ACDP
Rev Frank Chicane
Ms Beryl Ferguson
Mr Gugulethu Xaba
Mr Rowan Nicholas
Mr Rajenndra Pillay
Mr Grant Son

Combined list of candidates and parties that voted for the candidates:
Mr T Tselane:  ANC, DA, FF+, EFF
Dr B Pityane:  ANC, DA, FF+,
Ms B Ferguson: DA, FF+, ACDP
Mr G Xaba: DA, FF+, ACDP
Dr M Madzivhandila: ANC, EFF
Rev F Chicane: ANC, ACDP
Mr A Trikamjee: DA, FF+
Mr T Dlamini: DA, FF+
Ms Precious N Sibiya: ANC
Mr William E Huma: ANC
Mr Rowan Nicholls: ACDP
Mr Rajenndra Pillay: ACDP
Mr Grant Son: ACDP

The Chairperson noted that the previous meeting had taken place on 24 February 2021 and that the current meeting was intended to finalise the shortlist. He pointed out that all parties had been contacted and consulted sufficiently. They had known that they had a right to nominate candidates. He added that the agreement to have a shortlist of six candidates was not the same as expecting all parties to nominate six candidates. Parties were permitted to nominate as many as they wished but that there was a limit on the number of candidates on the formal shortlist. The Members had before them all of the candidates nominated for the shortlist. He asked Members to recommend how the Committee should work its way to six candidates for the short list.
           
Ms Hermans stated that the ANC wished to propose that, in the spirit of inclusivity, the number of candidates on the shortlist be increased to eight, and therefore proposed that all candidates nominated by more than one party be included on the shortlist.

Mr S Mbuyane (ANC) supported the proposal of the ANC whip that the number be extended as it was not possible to separate the candidates proposed by the parties in the Portfolio Committee. He therefore supported the proposal to extend the shortlist to eight candidates.

Mr M Cuthbert (DA) requested time for a caucus amongst opposition parties.

The Chairperson was unsure of the approach.

Mr Mbuyane stated that a proposal was on the table and Members had already had a chance to consult, but he could, nevertheless, agree to caucus

Ms Yako reminded members that the EFF had proposed that a list of six candidates was too restrictive and had proposed ten candidates. The Committee Members had to expand their minds and determine how inclusive they wished to be: six, eight or ten. She agreed parties could caucus. She reminded the Committee again that a list of six candidates was too restrictive for a portfolio as critical as the one before the Committee.

The Chairperson reminded Members that he was responding to a request for a caucus.

Mr Z Burns-Ncamashe (ANC) said that, from the reflection of the Chairperson, the proposal by Mr Cuthbert seemed to be unprecedented, i.e. a first of its kind.  He took it that opposition parties wished to meet as a bloc. If that was the proposal, did the Committee endorse that as a principle, so that whenever the Portfolio Committee met, opposition parties could decide to converge as a bloc against the ruling party? He was checking the principle.

The Chairperson informed Mr Burns-Ncamashe that the ANC also had the right to call for a caucus if a need arose at any time in a Portfolio Committee meeting. Should the ANC wish to caucus that could be facilitated. Any party should be able to do so. He understood that there was an agreement that any Member could call for a caucus. The Secretary could advise on the process for parties to caucus as the situation on a virtual platform was different to when the Committee was in a Committee room where it was easy to arrange a caucus. He simply needed some information as to how it would happen in the virtual format.

Mr W Thring (ACDP) noted that a request for a caucus was not unusual and it happened regularly in municipal meetings. It was the prerogative of a party to call for a caucus and for the party to caucus with whomever it chose. Even the ANC could call for a caucus and it was not against any regulation. The ACDP had a position on the numbers but he held his counsel on that matter for the moment.

Mr Cuthbert agreed with Mr Thring that it was not unusual to call for a caucus. He had wanted to contact Mr Macpherson and not to operate as a bloc. The situation was different in virtual meetings and it was sometimes difficult to speak to one’s colleagues in the Committee. He had, however, in the interim been able to speak to Mr Macpherson about Ms Herman’s proposal. He withdrew the request for a caucus and the DA accepted the change in the number of candidates to eight candidates on the shortlist.

The Chairperson concluded the point on a caucus. He stated that it was an accepted principle that any party could call for a caucus and it would be permitted in the Portfolio Committee.

The Secretary explained that the situation was that there was a proposal on the table for a shortlist of eight candidates. The Chairperson needed to determine whether there was a counter proposal.

The Chairperson suggested that perhaps the meeting should formally accept the proposal.

Mr Thring proposed an amendment to the proposal. He agreed that the Committee should approve the top six candidates supported by the majority of parties but in terms of the number of candidates, he supported Ms Yako’s proposal to take the number up to ten by including additional candidates who had been nominated by at least one political party as it gave a broader field with a better selection choice, in the opinion of the ACDP.

Ms Yako repeated her proposal that ten would be more acceptable and would not be a train smash.

The Chairperson noted that the discussion centred around the number of shortlisted candidates. The Committee had an agreement of six and then there were proposals for an increase in candidates from six to eight or to ten.

Mr Mbuyane stated that the Committee had already accepted the proposal to increase to eight candidates on the list. The proposal had been made and seconded by two Members. If there was another proposal, the Chairperson had to check how many Members were seconding the proposal. If the criteria were changed to ten candidates, the criteria would have to be determined for how the Committee would select ten candidates. The criteria for a list of eight candidates would be the inclusion of any candidate that had been nominated by more than one party. How would the number be reduced to ten?

The Secretary explained that there were two proposals before the Committee and the Committee had to make a decision on which proposal to accept: the proposal by Ms Herman, supported by Mr Mbuyane and Mr Cuthbert, was for eight candidates on the shortlist; the proposal by Ms Yako, supported by Mr Thring, was for ten candidates on the shortlist. The Committee had to determine which proposal to accept. The Committee would have to vote on the matter.

The Chairperson reminded the Committee that the original proposal was for six candidates on the shortlist but he agreed that the Committee could check who supported each of the current proposals. The issue of six candidates was not a big issue and the Committee could determine which Members agreed with ten candidates and then the meeting could move to the proposal for eight Members.

The Secretary stated that he would call on each Member to vote. The proposal before the Committee was that the shortlist would contain ten candidates.

The Chairperson suggested that Members raise their hands.

Ms Hermans proposed that the names of Members be called and Members would call out their vote.

The Chairperson agreed and asked for Members to raise their hands.

The Secretary insisted that it was necessary for the Members to state whether they were voting for or against the proposal.

He called the names and Members responded as follows:
Voting for ten candidates on the shortlist:
Ms Herman - against
Ms Motaung - against
Ms Moatshe - against
Mr Ncamashe - against
Mr Macpherson - against
Ms Yako - in favour
Mr Mulder - against
Mr Thring - in favour
Mr Mbuyane - against
Mr Cuthbert - against

Voting for a shortlist of eight candidates:
Ms Herman - in favour
Ms Motaung - in favour
Ms Moatshe - in favour
Mr Ncamashe - in favour
Mr Macpherson - in favour
Ms Yako - against
Ms Mulder - in favour
Mr Thring - abstain
Mr Mbuyane - in favour
Mr Cuthbert - in favour

The Secretary stated that the majority of Members were in favour of eight candidates who had multi-party support: eight in favour, one abstention and one against.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee had changed its decision and there would no longer be six candidates on the shortlist. It was important to note that in the Committee meeting, eight Members had agreed to a shortlist of eight candidates, one Member had abstained and only one Member was against the proposal. That was a good position for democracy. He was pleased that there was multi-party support for the proposal. There was to be a shortlist of eight candidates for the interviews for the position of the Chairperson of the NLC and that concluded the process that the Committee had met to determine.

The Secretary noted that the decision had been taken but indicated that the administrative process would kick in at that point and he suggested that the Committee be referred to the procedural document.

Resolution
The Committee resolved by a majority vote that the shortlist for the appointment process for the position of Chairperson of the National Lottery Commission would contain eight candidates and that the eight candidates who had been nominated by two or more candidates would be on the shortlist.

The Secretary stated that the candidates to be interviewed on 9 March 2021 were as follows:
Mr Terry Tselane
Rev Barney Pityana
Ms Beryl Ferguson
Mr Gugulethu Xaba
Dr Muthuhandini Madzivhandila
Rev Frank Chicane
Mr Ashwin Trikamjee
Mr Themba Dlamini

Administrative process
The Chairperson requested the Secretary to inform Members of the process going forward.

The Secretary stated that the secretariat would immediately inform candidates of their nominations and once candidates had accepted the nomination, the secretariat would begin with logistical arrangements. The Committee had, the previous year, agreed that the interviews would be held in-person.

The secretariat would finalise the screening of qualifications and apply for the security checks for the nominated candidates. The information would be forwarded to Members once received. The list of candidates would be placed on the parliamentary social media sites, calling for public comment on the nominations and Members would be informed of any such comments. The draft questions would be prepared and presented to the Committee on 9 March 2021 in a closed session before the interviews and the Committee was entitled to change any of the questions during that session.

The Secretary added that as there were eight candidates, the interviews would probably take the entire day. As raised by Ms Hermans, there was a sitting in the National Assembly on that day. He would make an application to the House Chairperson and the Chief Whip for the Portfolio Committee to be excused from the plenary on 9 March 2021 so that the Committee could spend the entire day in interviews.

He stated that once that process had been completed, the Committee would meet the following day to deliberate on the matter and make a decision as to who would be nominated. That decision could be taken on either 10 March 2021 or the following week on 16 March 2021. Thereafter, the Committee would compile a report for consideration by the House on a date to be programmed by the Programme Committee.

The Secretary pointed out that the candidates were located across the country: Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Port Elizabeth in the Eastern Cape and the Western Cape. He would make arrangements for lunch and also for dinner should the process continue beyond 18:00. He would make the logistical application for the travel arrangements and the financial application for the entire process. He apologised for not using the new name for Port Elizabeth but he had to learn how to pronounce it.

The Chairperson said that he was sure that Mr Burns-Ncamashe had noted people not pronouncing his name correctly but he did not think that it was deliberate. He asked him to be tolerant of anyone who could pronounce names correctly.

Ms Yako interjected that people had to pronounce names correctly.

The Chairperson asked if Ms Yako was covered in terms of her initial question.

Ms Yako stated that the top eight candidates would be decided by the voting of the parties. She was fine with the dates but she requested that a document about how things would take place be emailed to her.

The Chairperson explained that the Committee Programme, previously adopted by the Committee, covered all the processes that would be engaged in. The Secretary had just provided some detail. He recapped the points and reminded her that interviews would occur on 9 March 2021. It would be in-person but those details could be sorted out later.

Ms Hermans suggested that Ms Yako was speaking of the document tabled at the meeting by the Secretary and requested that it be emailed to all Members. She asked how to pronounce the new name for Port Elizabeth.

The Chairperson suggested that learning to pronounce names could happen at teatime.

Mr Thring supported the recommendation that the Members received a copy of the procedure going forward. He requested new copies of the eight CVs.

Mr Cuthbert proposed closure.

Ms Hermans seconded the proposal.

There were no objections.

Closing remarks
The Chairperson stated that in the absence of any objections to the proposal, the meeting would have to be closed.

The meeting was adjourned.