I hereby give notice that I shall move:
That the House-
(1) noting that -
(a) Ms Gloria Serobe was one of the 12 candidates recommended by the House on Thursday, 13 September 2007, for appointment by the President to the SABC Board;
(b) when interviewed by the Portfolio Committee on Communications and asked whether she knew the person who had nominated her for appointment, a Mr Louis du Plooy, who gave his address as P O Box 2012, Groenkloof 0027, she replied that she did not know him but it was "nice" of him to have done so;
(c) according to a report in the Sunday Times of 16 September 2007 Mr du Plooy "... revealed yesterday that he had discussed Serobe's nomination with her (emphasis added) 'as I had to get a CV from her to submit with the nomination form'"; and
(d) Mr du Plooy is the Chief Director for Ministerial Services in the Ministry in the Presidency but did not reveal this important information in nominating Ms Serobe;
(2) resolves -
(a) to appoint a committee to conduct a preliminary investigation into whether Ms Serobe, in informing the Portfolio Committee that she did not know Mr du Plooy, wilfully furnished the Portfolio Committee with false or misleading information and thereby committed the offence of breach of parliamentary privilege in terms of section 17(2)(e) of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act 4 of 2004 (possibly in an attempt to conceal from the Portfolio Committee Mr du Plooy's direct link with the Minister in the Presidency, Dr Essop Pahad), the investigation to be conducted with a view to establishing whether the matter warrants formal referral to the National Director of Public Prosecutions for prosecution under the Act; (b) that the committee may exercise those powers in Rule 138 that may assist it in carrying out its task;
(c) that the committee reports to the House within 15 working days; and
(d) that the President be informed immediately of the decision of the House to investigate whether Ms Serobe may have committed a breach of parliamentary privilege.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the issue with regard to Ms Gloria Serobe's interview with the Portfolio Committee on Communications for the position on the SABC Board is quite clear.
It is more than obvious when one examines the verbatim transcript of her interview and her letter to Madam Speaker about this matter; that Ms Serobe apparently tried to hide the fact that the person who nominated her, Mr Louis du Plooy, works for Dr Essop Pahad in the Ministry in the Presidency. He is in fact the Chief Director in the Ministry of the Presidency.
The same Mr Du Plooy has a P O Box number in Groenkloof and it was this box number that he used for his letter to Parliament nominating Ms Serobe.
In her words, Ms Serobe appears to have chosen to be devious and purported to the committee when asked that she did not know Mr Du Plooy at all. She now says that she knows Mr Du Plooy who works in the Presidency, but she doesn't know the same Mr Du Plooy who has a Groenkloof P O Box number.
This is obviously complete and utter nonsense. It is quite simply contemptuous of the intelligence of the hon members of this House. If this is so then quite frankly this is patently wrong. I submit that we cannot sanction the appointment of a person to the SABC Board who believes that she can treat Parliament in this manner.
I am therefore respectfully requesting that this House proceeds with appointing a committee to conduct an investigation into whether Ms Serobe wilfully furnished the committee with false or misleading information and in so doing committed a breach of parliamentary privilege.
There was nothing wrong in law with Mr Du Plooy nominating her. So, why did she try to hide it? Mr Du Plooy is a citizen of the Republic and could have nominated Ms Serobe and openly stated his title and his work address; Ministry in the Presidency. He chose, instead, to give a somewhat anonymous P O Box number.
Conclusions can, of course, be drawn about this; but this is not the nub of the matter today. Whether an official and an appointing authority of the Presidency should use subterfuge to insert a candidate or candidates into a parliamentary process can be the subject of an entirely different debate, but not today.
At the time of her interview, the Chairperson of the Communication's Committee asked Ms Serobe directly in these exact words, I quote: "Who nominated you? Mr Du Plooy? Is he any organisation or is he just an independent person?" Ms Serobe answered, I quote: "I actually don't know and I never found out who that is and finally it was very sweet of him. I must call him or her."
It is my contention which I would like the committee to investigate that by saying this, Ms Serobe wilfully furnished the portfolio committee with false or misleading information. She knew Mr Du Plooy; she'd spoken to him. She knew exactly who he was!
Ms Serobe is now trying to say in her letter to the Speaker that the chairperson referred to Mr Du Plooy of Groenkloof and that she doesn't know a Mr Du Plooy of Groenkloof. This is sheer sophistry.
It is clear in the verbatim transcript of her interview that the Chairperson did not refer to a Mr du Plooy of Groenkloof, but merely asked about Mr du Plooy. Ms Serobe is, therefore, blatantly continuing her misleading conduct by adding the words "Groenkloof" in her letter to the Speaker.
She is now admitting that she was telephoned by Mr du Plooy of the Office of the Presidency asking whether she would agree to a nomination to the SABC Board. So, why didn't she tell us that she knew precisely who this particular Mr Du Plooy is? Because hon members, that would appear that she recklessly chose to mislead the Committee.
This is why the IFP believes that there is serious doubt as to her integrity. Surely given the facts to hand, she cannot be honoured by a statutory appointment to the SABC Board - approved by the President of the Republic - until this hon House appoints the committees as requested and investigate her conduct. Thank you.
Were you not expecting to speak? If you want to take the slot now, please do so. No. I have the right to rearrange the order.
I recognise your rights, hon Deputy Speaker. I had hoped to hear the ANC on the subject because I think the central subject or point that we wish to make here is that this entire episode has demonstrated that there is in fact a need for a mechanism to follow up incidents such as the one that has just occurred.
When Ms Vos's motion was tabled on September 20th the points available by way of background evidence were: Her interview during which she said she did not know who Mr Du Plooy was; and secondly, the sterling work of the Sunday Times who spotted Mr Louis Du Plooy of the Office of the Ministry in the Presidency, traced the fax number of the nomination and spoke to Mr Du Plooy who confirmed he had nominated her.
The evidence now available includes the letter that Ms Serobe wrote to the Speaker and which was very properly published in the ATCs of 15th November. We now have the reported words of Mr Du Plooy but we also have now the verbatim signed words of Ms Serobe, that, to use her own her own words:
I was contacted telephonically by Mr Louis Du Plooy of the Office of the Presidency and so forth, as you have heard. According to the transcript of our interview and our proceedings the Chairperson asked her whether Mr Du Plooy was in any organisation or was just an independent person, and Ms Serobe said as you have heard "I actually don't know. I never found out who that is". However, in her letter she says:
Had the chairman asked me if I know Mr Louis Du Plooy of the Office of the Presidency, I would have confirmed yes as I had no need to conceal the fact.
Madam, what we need to convey is that persons who appear before parliamentary committees must understand that we act in good faith here and that they may not mislead us. And they may certainly not to lie to us. You do not come here to play games.
It is ironic that it is the concern of myself and the hon Mr Khumalo in particular, and one of the reasons I look forward to hearing him now. Our concern was to explore conflicts of interest and to warn her that the SABC is contested terrain. I asked her considering her, part-ownership of Telkom together with Mr Smuts Ngonyama and the Elephant Consortium, about her possible conflict of media which is entering the same terrain.
Mr Khumalo in particular, prophetically as it turns out, described how, I quote: "... respectable, dignified people sometimes they leave the Board of the SABC in tatters, their images in shambles".
Now, we have in fact the mother of all conflicts of interests on our hands because the Ministry in the Presidency is part of the body that must appoint independent institutions like the SABC, which are supposed to be selected strictly by Parliament under our law. Parliament is given the power of selection and the public has the right to nominate so that the executive from which the SABC must be statutorily independent is precisely not empowered to select the board.
That is why it constitutes subversion of the selection process when the Presidency - the very formal appointing body that signs our choice into office at the end of the process - intrudes on the nomination process in the first place.
What were Mr Du Plooy and Prof Anver Salojee, by the way, doing, having sight of the nominations, when the MPs did not even seen them, and faxing the nominations from the Union Buildings? Just in case hon members, you thought Mr Du Plooy was an unguided missile, we also received a nomination for another prominent Wiphold lady, Louisa Mojela, from Prof Anver Salojee of 114 Graskop Road, Waterkloof Heights, from the ubiquitious fax number 012 300 5779. If any one does not know to whom Prof Salojee advises and reports, try the fax number. It belongs to the Union Buildings.
Can we please dispense now with the pretence that the public servants are exercising their constitutional rights in acting as purported private citizens when they try to buy the Sunday Times or to influence the composition of the SABC Board? Hon members any Minister or any President can then do what is clearly outside his powers by telling his public servants to act and then defending their personal private right to do what he cannot. It is self-evident.
In our system the political head is the accountable person and his departmental staff act on his or her instruction or with his or her approval only. Mr du Plooy is not under fire here, he is a public servant. I would have preferred not to have to deal with a matter like this with Ms Serobe who is the civilian, but she has I regret misled us and I think we lack a proper mechanism to deal with situations like this. Thank you.
Deputy Speaker, hon members, this debate and this motion are completely unnecessary because they do not seem to ask the right questions.
[Inaudible.]
Just be quiet! I will come back to you now.
Meneer, as ek nou omdraai en vir jou antwoord, dan sal jy spyt wees en ons is op die laaste dag, voor die Kersfees reses. [Sir, should I now turn around and respond, then you will regret it, and this on the last day before the Christmas recess.]
Hon member, go back to your debate.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. This is an unnecessary debate because Ms Smuts and Ms Vos did not ask the right question.
They asked about Mr Du Plooy from Groenkloof, which a person answered. Nobody bothered to ask: "Do you know somebody in the Presidency or somebody working for a particular Minister? If you have not done that, how do you blame anybody else? People did not ask that question. By the way, the law allows any South African to nominate a person of their choice. It is up to us as a committee to consider that nomination.
Members, if I did not know Ms Smuts and Ms Vos better I would have called them closet racists because this is not the first time that when particular people are nominated they have a problem with it. [Interjections.] It is nothing like that. It is because an African woman has been nominated that they have a problem. [Interjections.]
I do not know what the point of order is. Maybe I am too close to the truth when I call them closet racists. Maybe it is about time that they must come out and say: "Yes, I am a racist. I have a problem with the African woman." [Interjections.]
Order, hon member. Will you please take your seat.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I wanted to ask whether I might ask the hon member a question - but I am now going to ask for more - drawn exactly from the transcript which contradicts what he has just said. [Interjections.]
Let's ask him whether he would like to take a question first.
I would now like to take a point of order. I have just been called a racist.
Hon member, if that is what you have said, you must withdraw. [Interjections.] Will you please allow me just even a moment to take a ruling on this matter? Mr Waters, Mr Van der Merwe, will you please take your seats. We are not yet on holiday. We take our proper seats and we do not sit on the side of the seats.
Mr Pieterse, withdraw please - unconditionally!
Even if I call them closet racists? [Interjections.]
Unconditionally!
Withdrawn, Deputy Speaker. Withdrawn!
Thank you.
But the fact still stands that they have a problem that an African woman has been nominated. [Interjections.]
Will you please take your seat.
Deputy Speaker, the speaker also referred to Ms Vos as being a racist.
He referred to whom as what?
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: He referred to the hon Ms Suzanne Vos as being a racist. He should withdraw that. Madam Deputy Speaker, he knows that the word should not be used. You should ask him to apologise.
No. You are raising a point of order and I am trying to get the attention of the member at the podium. If that is what you said, hon member, we need an unconditional withdrawal.
Deputy Speaker, I referred to both of them and I want to repeat myself. I said that if I did not know them better, I would say that they were closet racists. Those were my words. If you say that I need to withdraw that, then I am more than happy to withdraw. Mr Van der Merwe, you ... [Interjections.]
Mr Pieterse, take your seat, please. Mr Pieterse!
Ma'am!
Will you please withdraw?
Withdrawn, Ma'am.
Thank you.
Mr Van der Merwe, you know you are not supposed to bring a cake into the House, but you still did. That is how stupid you are. Thank you. [Interjections.]
No! Mr Pieterse, please take you seat. I think you want us to remember you during the recess period, but let us remember you for very good behaviour. There is nothing wrong with a member being unintelligent, but it is not good manners to say to hon members they are stupid. I would like you to withdraw that as well.
I withdraw, Deputy Speaker.
Take your seat. Mr Oliphant has another point of order. [Interjections.] Okay! Now go back to your speaking notes, sir.
Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, comrades and friends, ladies and gentlemen, I am not going to ``gooi hulle" [fight with them]. I must say that I am in a festive mood, so I am not prepared to leave here and go on my Christmas holiday fighting with anybody, but the truth shall prevail. [Interjections.]
Don't start with the festive mood too early. [Laughter.] We are still working here and the festive mood is for after adjournment.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the matter that we are dealing with is the process that the portfolio committee usually engages with every after four years of the SABC Board term of office. What has happened is that the Portfolio Committee on Communications issued out an advertisement to invite people to apply to become members of the Board of the SABC. Everybody applied and the criteria was quite clear: You must be a South African; have no criminal record; possess particular qualifications, skills or expertise on which then all those who qualify had applied and sent their application forms that we short-listed.
Out of the shortlist that we did, Madam Deputy Speaker, we then short- listed the 12th we had submitted. Once we had done that the important thing was not even about the warm bodies that were there but actually what were the challenges facing the SABC. It is quite clear that the public broadcaster has got only three main mandates, namely to educate, inform and to entertain. It is those mandates that inform how we constitute the team that we want to lead us. But fundamental to that I would have to respond to ... [Interjections.]
Hon member, please continue. The House is listening to you.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I nearly said to the member that he needs vitamins A and C because it is quite clear that the hon member is sick and vitamins A and C would help him. Vitamins A and C are black, green and gold, he wouldn't miss them. They are found in all the branches. [Applause.]
The process that we followed was quite fair, transparent, clear and honest. It is unfortunate that very often the DA ... [Interjections.]
Order!
The DA would often want us to put forward people that they prefer and every time that we put forward credible South Africans, especially educated, powerful, black African women or any other, they sometimes have serious objections to that. [Interjections.] You see! They have serious objection to that and that is how then this issue created this particular problem.
However, what we then did is in fact that after the interviewing and selection process, we had the best candidates. We had followed the process to the letter and whoever nominated who is not the issue because the guideline says every South African, black or white, does qualify to nominate anybody to be in the Board of the SABC and that board must then carry its mandate.
Fundamental to the challenges of the SABC is, firstly to provide information that is credible, fair, balanced and that can then inform the society as we move. Secondly, it is to even educate the population of the country and entertain them through various programmes and the people that we have selected are the best.
What the motion wants to do is to try and tarnish the images not only of the candidates concerned, but also images of men and women who are credible, powerful and good that we believe can actually achieve the mandates as expected.
Most importantly, we believe that the broadcaster must do one of the fundamentals contained in the African Union Commission on Human and People's Rights which talks about freedom of expression that is also contained on the United Nations ... [Interjections.]
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Is it allowed that the ANC is not addressing the issue before us, namely that the person misled the committee? [Interjections.]
Hon member, stick to the topic.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sticking to the topic and I am not going to be dictated to in terms of how I should proceed with my discussion by Mr Van der Merwe. [Interjections.]
Hon member!
Yes, ma'am.
Please stick to the topic and try to conclude your speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the topic is around the fact that the motion, tabled by the IFP and supported by the DA, is not informed. I said that this motion that they are tabling is intended to tarnish the image of the candidates that have applied and the SABC because they consider the SABC as an area that has been taken or hijacked and therefore they just want to point fingers at what they believe is wrong.
Therefore, the ANC utterly rejects this motion. We will not accept it and we say that we have confidence in the current board and even in the upcoming board to lead the SABC for the next few years. So this motion will not be accepted. It is rejected and we say no to the motion. That is our stand as the ANC, and I am prepared to take any other question. I am very ready. [Laughter.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a question.
No, he said he can take any question outside the House. [Interjections.]
Protect the integrity of this House!
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the hon members for their contribution such as they were in part even though the ANC did not address the real issue at all, and that was that Ms Serobe misled the committee. I believe that all that needs to be said is that the crux of the issue is whether or not this House intends to exercise its constitutional mandate of independent, efficient and effective oversight. Clearly, the ANC does not intend to do that and shame on you.
The matter relating to Ms Serobe should not be conflated to an emotional issue and should not be seen as a personal issue. The law is clear and we in this House have sworn to uphold the law. It is an offence when being examined by Parliament, as Ms Serobe was indeed being examined during her interview with the Portfolio Committee on Communications, to wilfully furnish the House or committee with information or make a statement before it which is false and misleading. That is what Ms Serobe did. She doesn't even know who Mr Du Plooy is and yet she wants to sit on the board. She admits not even knowing the person who nominated her. How pathetic is that!
Now, we are therefore surely required - which the ANC does not intend to do, but given the facts to hand - to establish a committee to investigate a possible breach of parliamentary privilege. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the motion by Ms S C Vos be adopted.
Division demanded.
The House divided:
AYES - 45: Blanch, J P I; Bogopane-Zulu, H I; Botha, A; Botha, C-S; Chang, E S; Cupido, H B; Delport, J T; Doman, W P; Dreyer, A M; Ellis, M J; Green, L M; King, R J; Kohler-Barnard, D; Labuschagne, L B; Lowe, C M; Madikiza, G T; Marais, S J F; Mdlalose, M M; Meshoe, K R J; Minnie, K J; Morgan, G R; Mpontshane, A M; Nel, A H; Opperman, S E; Pule, B E; Rabie, P J; Rabinowitz, R; Sayedali-Shah, M R; Schmidt, H C; Semple, J A; Sibuyana, M W; Sigcau, S N; Skosana, M B; Smuts, M; Swart, M; Swart, P S; Swart, S N; Swathe, M M; Van der Merwe, J H; Van Der Walt, D; Van Dyk, S M; Vos, S C; Waters, M; Weber, H; Zikalala, C N Z. NOES - 159: Abram, S; Anthony, T G; Asiya, S E; Baloyi, M R; Beukman, F; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, P; Bhoola, R B; Bloem, D V; Burgess, C V; Cachalia, I M; Carrim, Y I; Chohan, F I; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Daniels, P; Davies, R H; Direko, I W; Dithebe, S L; Dlali, D M; Doidge, G Q M; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gaum, A H; Gcwabaza, N E; Gerber, P A; Godi, N T; Gogotya, N J; Gololo, C L; Greyling, C H F; Gumede, D M; Gumede, M M; Hendricks, L B; Holomisa, S P; Jeffery, J H; Johnson, C B; Johnson, M; Kasienyane, O R; Kekana, C D; Kgauwe, M K; Khumalo, K K; Khumalo, K M; Khunou, N P; Kondlo, N C; Koornhof, G W; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Landers, L T; Likotsi, M T; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Ludwabe, C I; Luthuli, A N; Mabena, D C; Madella, A F; Madlala-Routledge, N C; Mahomed, F; Mahote, S; Maine, M S; Maja, S J; Makasi, X C; Makgate, M W; Maloney, L; Maluleka, H P; Martins, B A D; Maserumule, F T; Mashangoane, P R; Mashigo, R J; Masutha, T M; Matsemela, M L; Matsepe-Casaburri, I F; Matsomela, M J J; Mbombo, N D; Mdaka, N M; Mdladlana, M M S; Meruti, M V; Mgabadeli, H C; Mkhize, Z S; Mkongi, B M; Mlangeni, A; Mnguni, B A; Mnyandu, B J; Moatshe, M S; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, O M; Mogase, I D; Mohlaloga, M R; Montsitsi, S D; Moonsamy, K; Morkel, C M; Morobi, D M; Mosala, B G; Moss, M I; Mpahlwa, M B; Mthembu, B; Mtshali, E; Mzondeki, M J G; Ndlazi, Z A; Ndzanga, R A; Nel, A C; Nene, M J ; Nene, N M; Newhoudt- Druchen, W S; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, B T; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngculu, L V J; Ngele, N J; Ngwenya, M L; Njikelana, S J; Njobe, M A A; Nkuna, C; Nogumla, R Z; Ntuli, M M; Ntuli, R S; Nxumalo, S N; Nzimande, L P M; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Padayachie, R L; Pandor, G N M; Phala, M J; Pieterse, R D; Ramodibe, D M; Ramotsamai, C P M; Rasmeni, S M; Rwexana, S P; Schippers, J; Schneemann, G D; Schoeman, E A; Seadimo, M D; Sefularo, M; Selau, J G; September, C C; Shabangu, S; Sibande, M P; Sibanyoni, J B; Siboza, S; Solo, B M; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Swanson-Jacobs, J; Thabethe, E; Tinto, B; Tlake, M F; Tolo, L J; Tsenoli, S L; Tshabalala-Msimang, M E; Tshivhase, T J; Tshwete, P; Twala, N M; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van Wyk, A; Wang, Y; Yengeni, L E; Zulu, B Z.
Question not agreed to.
Motion accordingly negatived.
We seem not to be ready for the vote that I spoke about just now. We will come back to it, because it has to be done some time today still. The next item is a subject for discussion in the name of Mr M Waters on 16 Days of Activism for No Violence Against Women and Children.
Madam Speaker, I just want to raise a point of order.
Is it related to this matter?
No, to the previous matter.
We are dealing with that matter.
Madam Speaker, I just want to raise a point: I think that the voters must take note of their representatives from the DA.
That's not a point of order. Can you sit down? [Interjections.] Hon members, what is going on? [Interjections.] I think Christmas is coming too early for some of you. I just want to warn you that I am not going to allow this kind of behaviour from both sides of the House. We may ask some of you to take an early Christmas, so that we remain with a collective that wants to go on with the business of the nation.