Chairperson, over the last three weeks, the media and opposition MPs have had a field day commenting on the report of the Portfolio Committee on Communications. The report expressed a serious concern at developments at the SA Broadcasting Corporation, and the loss of confidence in the ability of the SABC board to discharge its statutory responsibilities.
Most have interpreted the crisis at Auckland Park as part of the fallout within the ANC after its Polokwane conference. For example, the hon Dene Smuts has said that "the atmosphere is thick with conspiracy and political purges". Suzanne Vos from the IFP has said that "the in-fighting was the result of there being two centres of power in the ANC".
Similarly the Sunday Times' editorial claimed that "Corporate governance and effective management at the SABC has all but collapsed as a result of the fight in the ruling ANC for political control of the public broadcaster". Jabulani Sikhakane, from The Star, drawing on Cold War symbolism, stated that "It would appear the Polokwane brigade, as in the new leadership of the ANC, has found its own pair of testicles to squeeze: the Scorpions and the SABC."
Pippa Green says that -
There is little nobility in the battle raging at Auckland Park, and no obvious winner. There is a loser, though, and that is the country, which has seen an institution that should be a foundation of democracy crumble because of factional political battles."
Of course any major development today must be located in its political context. It would be foolish not to do so, but what these journalists and opposition members fail to realise is that Parliament must act when there are clear signs of a leadership breakdown in a state-owned entity. Parliament must act when it becomes apparent that a board of a state-owned entity has become dysfunctional.
The committee's drastic display of displeasure against the SABC board is about the right of Parliament to exercise effective oversight over the public broadcaster, rather than about factional strife in the ANC. It is principally about public accountability of an institution that spends from the public purse.
Secondly, it must be remembered that the problems at the SABC did not start on 30 April when the committee expressed its loss of confidence in the board. In fact, the problems can be traced back at least two years. There is a long string of events that were either administratively mismanaged or just not tackled at all. To start with, there were media reports in June 2006 of the blacklisting of selected political commentators and journalists by the SABC's head of news and current affairs. Later, there was the appointment of the Sisulu Commission of Inquiry into the matter. We must state today that the recommendations of the Sisulu Commission were virtually ignored by the executive management of the SABC.
Then, in early 2007, there were media exposures of financial irregularities and a conflict of interest by the head of legal services of the SABC, which were also not dealt with decisively. This was followed by serious allegations of mismanagement, racism and staff in-fighting in a number of regional offices of the SABC. Then came the news early this year that the SABC has lost its broadcasting rights for soccer, cricket and rugby to a privately-owned TV channel.
I suppose the final straw for the committee was the leaking to the Sunday Times of a company memorandum by a board member. The memorandum contained serious allegations against the group Chief Executive Officer of the SABC.
The group CEO, of course, disputed the facts raised in the memorandum, and placed on record that it contained factual inaccuracies and misleading information. He expressed his extreme displeasure at the allegations levelled against him. He informed the committee that he first became aware of the memorandum through the media, and despite requests to meet with the board to resolve the matter, the board had refused to meet him.
What happened after that is history. The group CEO suspended Dr Snuki Zikalala. This was followed by the midnight suspension of Mr Dali Mpofu and then his reinstatement by the courts. Only two days ago, the board announced that it is appealing against the court's decision. So, the SABC saga drags on.
In all of this, what the committee found is that there was a complete breakdown in the relationship between the SABC board and its executive management. There was no trust between the board and the group CEO. There were no mechanisms or processes in place to resolve differences satisfactorily between the board and the executive management. Further, the board was not in a position to execute its responsibilities effectively.
The committee is fully conscious of the fact that neither it nor Parliament has the legal power to remove a board member or the board as a whole, but it also cannot turn a blind eye to the crisis that exists at Auckland Park.
We therefore recommend to the House that, at the very least, it expresses its serious concern at the failure and inability of the board to fulfil to its statutory functions. Secondly, the House should express its loss of confidence in the board. In doing so, we must be clear that we are not taking sides between the board and the group CEO. Our criticisms are aimed at the board as a collective entity.
Having said that, I must emphasise that there is today an urgent need for the board to reclaim some degree of public trust and confidence. In this regard, and in the light of the controversy that has dodged this board since its inception, I would respectfully appeal to each and every member of the board to search his or her conscience. I would also appeal to each member to ask himself or herself two simple questions: "Am I serving the best interests of the public broadcaster?" Secondly: "Am I discharging my responsibilities in the best way possible?" If the person's answer is no, then such a person should take the honourable step and resign voluntarily. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, the chairperson of the portfolio committee has just described the problems under the old SABC board and the problems created by the sitting GCEO Advocate Dali Mpofu to justify an attempted purge of the new board. Now I am going to tell it the way it was and is.
Sir, when the outgoing government intimidates ANC MPs into inserting three names over and above the eight which all MPs from all parties unanimously supported for the SABC, then that is bad but it is not a Mbeki board. However, when the incoming government or parts of the Tripartite Alliance try to intimidate the whole newly appointed board into resigning, that is worse. Who will be next? The SA Human Rights Council, the Independent Electoral Commission, IEC or judges? Sir, those persons are protected from arbitrary attack in Parliament by the requirement that a substantive motion has to be brought.
The SABC is not as grand as they are, although it enjoys the same appointment procedure, but that does not mean you can make unsubstantiated attacks on them. It does not mean you can unseat them. I am withdrawing my proposal that we should amend the Broadcasting Act's removal provision to give Parliament a role, because Parliament, in that committee, does not seem to understand that a person let alone a body of persons has to do their job badly or do something wrong before you can act against them.
Do not think for one moment that the twin suspensions at the SABC or the Mpofu court verdict means the ANC MPs had a case against the board. Not only did they not have a case, they never formulated a complaint; they never formulated a charge. Therefore no evidence was offered, and the board hardly knew from day one to day two what defence to offer, indeed even that they had to offer one since they never knew what they stood accused of until the sentence was pronounced, out of the blue, and the verdict.
It is only the Queen of Hearts, you know, from Alice in Wonderland, who believes "the sentence comes first, the verdict afterwards." And even the King and the Queen of Hearts had the hang of the idea of a trial or an inquiry because the Knave of Hearts knew he stood accused of something - the board didn't. The Knave of Hearts knew that that something was specifically the stealing of the tarts, all on a summer's day. You are the members of the South African Parliament and this report before you, printed on Friday 16 May purports to be, as its heading indicates, about the budget, strategic plan and priorities of the SABC.
However, these matters have not been discussed to this day. They have not been read by the ANC MPs, I will tell you that. On 29 April, the ANC insisted, contrary to practice, that the whole board should fly in to see - read your report- "whether they collectively take ownership of the strategic plan". Did they bake these tarts? You would have expected therefore that this plan would have formed at least the basis of the next day's discussion, not to mention the eventual damning findings: "That there is serious concern at the failure and inability of the board to fulfil its statutory duties", and that "it was not in a position to execute its fiduciary duties." Really? Really, so they cannot bake tarts? How do you know?
Not a single question was asked on these matters, not a word. The reports were not dealt with and yet you see it fit to bring such findings.
Now let me tell you what the deliberations in the committee did consist of on day two, 30 April, until we walked out when a motion of no confidence was pulled like a white rabbit out of a Mad Hatter's hat. It is a thing that has no basis and no effect, such a vote of no confidence, as we said as we walked out. A motion of no confidence will not be put in this House today because you cannot put such a thing.
The ANC's recommended motion also has no substance. The proceedings on day two consisted of an ambush. The Chair announced at the commencement that what was now on the table, today, was a different tray of tarts altogether, namely the memorandum leaked to the Sunday Times. It was not tabled. I haven't read it; the hon Kgotso Khumalo said he hadn't read it. He must not tell us here today, by the way, that there were other unresolved issues, as the Chair has just tried to do.
The new board reported on those outstanding issues inherited from the old board on 27 February. Mr Khumalo says with a straight face that the committee has not been briefed on the Premier Soccer League, PSL, radio soccer rights. We have, by Mr Peter Mancer of the PSL. There is one issue you never want to deal with - politics in Sea Point - and when the hon Vos tried to raise it very substantively, you silenced her.
So this report misleads when it says: "The following issues pertaining to the SABC were considered" and then lists matters from point one through to point six. They were not considered. Sir, the half dozen board members present on day two were challenged, at forefinger nail-point of impressive length, by the hon Lumka Yengeni to say one by one whether they took ownership, line by line, not of the strategic plan for which they had been summoned to fly in, but of the memorandum posted on the Sunday Times website. "Off with their heads! - as the Queen of Hearts used to say in Alice in Wonderland.
Now let me tell you why the board was really flown in. They were flown in for a staged showdown with their own management. The management were presumptively offered protection. Now you really don't need privilege to complain that the board didn't see you as a collective, but insisted on its own person-to-person procedure. That is really all this entire motion rests on: So-called differences driven by MPs, I am sorry to say, supported by Mrs Nzimande, who felt that the memorandum about Adv Mpofu was really about them all. Fine, go down with Dali, as far as I'm concerned.
This is another attempted purge like Blade Nzimande's attempt to tell Media 24 to purge Mathata Tsedu. The ANC has not proved a thing against a four- month old board which it damns, when I think the board is trying to deal precisely with old problems, including the loss of not one but two sets of sports rights by a CEO who would long ago have been sacked in the private commercial broadcasting sphere.
It is unacceptable when MPs orchestrate differences or collude with management to get rid of a board that they appointed which is actually trying to do its work. I think that it is one of many purges being carried out in this country by an incoming power bloc, which sweeps procedure and justice aside, and it is a phenomenon that concerns me very deeply. [Applause.]
Chairperson, the IFP will not support this report, because essentially it is a report with a manipulative party-political motive. The post-Polokwane ANC alliance wants to get rid of this pre-Polokwane ANC alliance SABC board. The issue is very clear; it is one of using Parliament here today in an attempt to set a process in motion to wrench control of the SABC board into new hands. This report has no precedence and no substance in law. This Parliament cannot sack this board, and we all know it.
Late last year, the IFP opposed the recommendation of appointment, by the President, of this Board as currently constituted in both the Portfolio Committee on Communications and in Parliament. Both times the ANC in the portfolio committee and in this House voted down our genuine concerns. We agree that there are serious problems in the SABC. We agree that serious problems exist in both the governance and management of the SABC, but let us be clear with regard to this report: The subject matter of the budget, strategic plan and priorities of the SABC has not been dealt with by the committee, as Mrs Smuts so clearly said, including the very serious allegations of fraud, racism and political interference pertaining to the SABC Sea Point office, which I raised over and over again with no result.
We all know what lies at the heart of these problems, and it is that the SABC has been steadfastly turned by the ANC alliance back into an apartheid- style state broadcaster. The ANC alliance crammed the SABC with party- political appointments and now we are seeing the result. Politicians, and politicians in the ruling party in particular, have let the SABC down and have let the people of South Africa down. The IFP therefore believes that the Broadcasting Act and all other relevant consequential laws must now be urgently amended to allow for the independent selection and appointment of the SABC board and board members to be made beyond party-political control. The selection of the SABC board must be taken away from Parliament. A new procedure for the public selection of the board must now be put into motion. Thank you.
Chairperson, what is clear from this committee report and the events that had transpired in the past few weeks is that there is a serious conflict in the upper echelons of the SABC. The board as the ultimate authority should take responsibility for allowing this conflict to spiral out of control. I, however, must hasten to add that the source of this conflict seems to revolve around the factional infighting of the ANC with certain people in institutions like the SABC being viewed as members of the faction that has fallen into disfavour.
Despite the many valid concerns regarding the SABC, which are alluded to in the committee report, one can't help but notice that these concerns are only now deemed critical enough to warrant drastic action from the side of the committee. We also have our reservations about the conduct of the SABC, and hope that any changes to the membership of the board or the activities of the board will translate in a marked change in the conduct of the SABC as a whole, especially the news department.
For us the solution is not for one politically biased board to be replaced with another that is more acceptable to the ruling faction. The board of the SABC as well as the staff of the SABC need to unshackle themselves from the long history of compliance to whosoever is ruling the country.
The SABC is the public broadcaster, and its first and only concern should be the needs of the public. The culture of pre-emptive self-censorship and blinkered pandering to the perceived expressed wishes of the ruling party must come to an end. The UDM does not support this report and will not be party to the vote of no confidence proposed by the ruling party. Thank you.
Chairperson, the ID believes that it is completely unacceptable that the SABC has become mired in controversy due to the ANC's infighting. This mess goes against our public broadcaster's constitutional mandate by our people.
What is being forgotten in this crisis is the effect it is having on our journalists; they are the victims because they are the ones who take their duty to South Africans seriously. They can no longer show their accreditation with pride. The SABC has already lost so many brilliant journalists to other media companies, and we simply cannot afford to lose any more.
Because the Portfolio Committee on Communications does not have the power to remove the existing board, the ID fails to see what we can gain from this process except the continuation of the destructive stalemates. Unless the President acts, and the ID doubts that he will, we are stuck with this board. It would therefore be far better to try and find an amicable solution with all parties concerned. Surely this is a better option than fanning the flames of political division to the detriment of news and journalists alike.
The ID pleads with all of you to help remove the politics from the SABC for once and for all and that in future any appointment to the board or top management not be based on political affiliations. Only in this way can the public and the SABC journalists be assured that party-political commissars like Snuki Zikalala will not tamper with the information that is beamed into our homes.
The ID will therefore not support this report, and calls upon the committee to play a constructive role in resolving this mess. Thank you.
Chairperson, hon members, as the Portfolio Committee on Communications, we executed our duties as permitted by law on the selection of members of the SA Broadcasting Corporation board. Advertising, shortlisting, and interviews were held which finally came up with names that we agreed we can propose to Parliament. We came to Parliament with the list of names although there were clouds hanging over some names.
We proposed those names to be voted for by this House. This House voted for those which were eventually signed in by the President and the board officially resumed their duties as of 1 January 2008.
Yaqala inkathazo ngalelo langa. Ekuqaleni kukaFebruwari 2008, kwaba khona umhlangano weBhodi wokuqala obizwa ngokuthiwa yi-Induction workshop. Laliphelele iBhodi kulo mhlangano. Uma ngithi laliphelele, ngisho ukuthi kwakukhona izinhlangothi zombili okungabaphathi abaholwa umpathi jikelele oyinhloko kanye nalaba abakhethwe yiPhalamende abayishumi nambili. Kwaba umhlangano onsuku mbili befundiswa abasha ukusebenza kweMinyango ye-SA Broadcasting Corporation, i-SABC, nezinhloko zayo. Kwaba sengathi izinto zizohamba kahle kanti asibuzanga elangeni.
Ngomhla zingama-29 kuMashi 2008, saba nomhlangano kuleli Bhodi bangafika bonke njengoba sasibazi beyishumi nambili. Emhlanganweni wokuqala nje sasicele ukuthi kube khona nabe-Premier Soccer League ukuze basichazele kahle ngodaba lokulahleka kwelungelo lokusakazwa komabonakude kwemidlalo yebhola lezinyawo. Ngaphambi komhlangano sathola incwadi ebhalwe umphathi jikelele ebuza ukuthi ukuphapha kwani lokhu esikwenzayo? Simusaphi lo muntu we-PSL? Wasabisa ngokuthi angase angezi uma kuza nomuntu we-PSL kodwa saqhubeka nokumletha phansi kwaleso simo.
Kulowo mhlangano ikomidi lethu lalinemibuzo eminingi elalifuna ukuyibuza iBhodi lakwaSABC. Nansi eminye yemibuzo: Udaba lwe-SABC namahhovisi ase- Seaboard lapha kwakubikwa ukuxabana kwezinhlanga kuze kungenele umthelela wezepolitiki. Okwesibili, udaba lwe-SABC namahhovisi ase-Free State ngoba nalapho kunezindaba ezijulile. Okwesithathu, sifuna ukwazi ngezinyathelo ezathathwa kulandela izincomo zeKhomishana ka-Marcus Sisulu lapho wayethe akuxoshwe uDokotela uSnuki Zikalala ngoba esolwa ngonyawo lwemfene. Okwesine, sifuna ukwazi ngamagama aziswana ayezwakale emthonjeni yabezindaba ethi uMmeli uDali Mpofu benoDkt uSnuki Zikala bezwakala bethi uma kungaphumelela uQabane uZuma - beze bembhuqa bemfanisa nenkawu - bona bosula ezikhundleni zabo. Sasifuna bacacise kulokhu. Kepha emhlanganweni, uSihlalo waleli Bhodi uNksz Mkhonza wavele wathi abazukuphendula nowodwa wale mibuzo ngoba iBhodi yabo iseyintsha. Wathi bayobuya basiphendule.
Ngomhla zizine ku-Ephreli, yena lowo Sihlalo uNksz Mkhonza wabhala imemorandamu igxeka ukusebenza kukaMmeli uDali Mpofu isho nokuthi uDali uyisikhubekiso ekusebenzeni kwakhe kungcono axoshwe, futhi usezikhethe yena noChristine Qunta no-Lagadien ukuba baphenye uDali Mpofu ukuze bathole izaba zokumxosha.
Ngomhlaka zingama-29 Ephreli, kwaba nomhlangano weBhodi elingaphelele, bengekho abaphathi lapho okwahletshwa khona ngabaphathi kulowo mhlangano. Ukukhuluma ngomuntu engekho kufana nokuhleba uma ungambizanga ngamabomu ekhona. Kwasabona laba bakhethwa beBhodi babengaphelele kuxoxwa ngale memorandamu eyayibhalwe usihlalo enxenxa abanye ukuba bameseke emizamweni yakhe yokuketula uDali. Abanye abayithandanga le nto. IBhodi lahlukana phakathi kwaba abayisikhombisa ngala kanye bayisihlanu ngale.
Ngomhla ziyi-13 Ephreli, le memorandamu yaputshukela kwabemithombo yezindaba. Ukusukela ngomhla zizine kuze kube umhla ziyi-13, leyo memorandamu yayingakafiki ezandleni zikaDali Mpofu. Ngomhla zingama-29 Ephreli 2008, i-SABC kwakufanele izokwethula isu lezinhlelo kanye nesabiwomali ezithebeni zekomiti. Bafika. IBhodi nabaphathi babemunye khona benhlanhlaka. Kwacaca ukuthi leli su lezinhlelo abathi bazolethula akuvunyelwene ngalo. Ikomiti lacela ukuthi beze sebephelele emhlanganweni wangakusasa. Ngomhla zingama-30 Ephreli, iningi labakhethwa beBhodi lafika emhlanganweni. Sekuxoxwa kwacaca ukuthi ibhodi lehlukene kabili - kukhona uMkhonza, uQunta, uLagadien abapheka futhi baxove izinto kwa-SABC. Abanye izimvu ezilandela osekushiwo. Emhlanganweni kwaba yingxovangxova phakathi kweBhodi nabaphathi. Usihlalo webhodi athi kukhona uphenyo abuye athi alukho, uDali athi namanje akakayitholi kwaleyo memorandamu uyifunda emaphepheni. Sangazi ukuthi silalele bani siyeke bani siyikomidi.
Kwacaca kodwa ukuthi ubudlelwano phakathi kwabo abusophinde bulunge ngenxa yokwehluleka kweBhodi ukukhomba indlela. Leli Bhodi iqeqeba labantu elingayazi into eliyenzayo futhi elingeke liphinde lilungiseke. Njengekomidi, sanquma ivoti yokungabethembi phecelezi Vote of no confidence kubona. Emva kwalokho, uDali Mpofu waxosha uSnuki Zikalala ntambana. Kwathi ngabo lobo busuku bangalala, iBhodi laxosha yena Dali lowo. [Uhleko.] Konakele e-Auckland Park, umaxoshaxoshana. [Uhleko.]
Umahluleli omkhulu wenkantolo eGoli uvumelene nathi siyikomidi ukuthi leli Bhodi umsangano nje. Izinqumo elizithathayo lizithatha limi ngezinyawo. Okubi kakhulu uSihlalo waleli Bhodi noma kunini nje akayiboni inkinga. Uma simshaya ngevoti lokungamethembi, uthi kuzoqhubeka izinto njengenjwayelo. Esinqumweni sikamehluleli uthi ayikho into enzima, bazolungisa into athe umehluleli ayihambanga kahle baphinde bamxoshe futhi uDali. Akanandaba nezindleko zecala. Sithi-ke siyikomidi kwanele manje ukudlala umjikajo. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[And it was on that very first day that the problem started. At the beginning of February 2008, there was an induction workshop. All members of the board were present in that workshop. When I say the board members were all present, I mean that both parties were there, a team of managers led by the Group CEO as well as the other twelve board members who are elected by Parliament. They held a two-day workshop where new members were familiarised with the workings of the SABC and its heads of departments. Initially we thought that things would be alright, but we were wrong.
On 29 March 2008, we had a meeting with the board, but not all of them showed up. In that first meeting, we had asked the Premier Soccer League to send us one of their own people to explain to us how the SABC had lost the soccer broadcasting rights. And just before the meeting could sit, we received a letter from the Group CEO asking us why we were so meddlesome in things that did not concern us. He wanted to know our reason for requesting the presence of a person from the PSL. And he also threatened us that he might not even attend the meeting if we still insisted on having a representative from the PSL, but we went on to invite the PSL despite all that.
We had many questions that we as a committee wanted to ask the SABC board. Here are some of them: The issue of the SABC offices in Sea Point where it was reported that there were racial tensions amongst the groups and this was said to have included political bias. Secondly, there was the issue of the SABC and its Free State office - since it is known that there are also sensitive issues there. Thirdly, we wanted to know what steps were taken following the recommendations of the commission chaired by Sisulu and Marcus that Dr Snuki Zikalala should be fired because he was found to have acted inappropriately. Fourthly, we wanted to know about the derogatory words mentioned in the press which were allegedly uttered by both Adv Dali Mpofu and Dr Snuki Zikalala that if Comrade Zuma wins - whom they had allegedly likened to an ape - they would resign from their positions.
We wanted them to give clarity on this matter. But, in the meeting, the chairperson of the board, Ms Mkhonza, just said that they would not respond to any of these questions because the board was still new. She said they would respond at a later stage.
But, on the 4 April, the same chairperson, Ms Mkhonza, wrote a memorandum criticizing Adv Dali Mpofu's work. It further stated that Adv Mpofu was a thorn in her side and it recommended that he be fired. She had already appointed herself, Christine Qunta and Lagadien to investigate Dali Mpofu so that they could find leverage to fire him. On 29 April, a meeting of the board was held and it comprised non-executive board members and that is when the back-stabbing of the executive members of the board was done. Talking about someone in their absence is tantamount to back-stabbing especially if you deliberately leave that person out. And not all non-executive members of the board were present when that memorandum was discussed where the chairperson was bidding other members to help her in her mission to topple Dali. Some did not like this and the board was divided into camps of seven members on the one side and five members on the other side.
On 13 April the very same memorandum was leaked to the press. As from 4 to 13 April, that memorandum had not been given to Dali Mpofu yet. On 29 April 2008, the SABC was supposed to come and present its strategic plan and its budget to the committee. The board presented itself. They seemed very united even though they were divided. It became clear that the strategic plan which they had to present was not agreed upon, and the committee requested that the whole SABC board be present at the following day's meeting.
On 30 April, most non-executive board members were present in that meeting. It became clear during the discussions that the board was divided into two - on the one hand it was Mkhonza, Qunta and Lagadien who were conspiring and confusing matters at the SABC, and others were just merely seconding what had been presented. That meeting was a mess between the non-executive members of the board and the executive members. The chairperson was confusing those at the meeting by constantly saying there was an investigation going on and, at the same time she would also say there was none. And Dali on the other hand would say that he had not yet received the memorandum, but he had only read about it in the newspapers. As a committee we did not know who to believe and who not to.
It became clear that the relations between them would never improve because the board was unable to give guidance. This board is just a group of clueless people who do not know what they are doing and it will never come right. As a committee, we have decided to cast a vote of no confidence in this board. After that, in the evening, Dali Mpofu suspended Snuki Zikalala. And, in turn, the board couldn't sleep, and it suspended Dali that same night. [Applause.] Something is wrong in Auckland Park; they are playing a firing game. [Applause.]
A judge in a Johannesburg High Court agreed with us as a committee that this board is just a nuisance. The decisions they are taking are inconclusive. And worst of all is that the chairperson of this board does not seem to see any problem in all this. When we cast the vote of no confidence in the board, she said that things would go on as usual. And, as far as the High Court's ruling is concerned, she merely said there was nothing difficult there; they will simply follow the correct procedure and suspend Dali again. She does not seem to care about the expenses of the case. Therefore, as the committee, we are saying it is enough. The game is over.]
Now is the time!
Abesule bonke abebhodi ezikhundleni zabo. Asisabadingi. Abahambe. Sesiyabonga. [Ihlombe.] [All board members must resign; we don't need them anymore. Let them go. We have had enough. [Applause.]]
Chair, the SA Broadcasting Corporation, the SABC, is supposed to be owned by the people of South Africa and be the voice of the people. The 1999 Broadcasting Act was supposed to have heralded a complete break from the old order where the SABC was the voice of the NP, when public interest was confused with narrow party interests. Yet, it is very clear that the SABC has been used to promote the ANC's party interests. It is also very clear that the present crisis reflects the broader battle within the ANC - that of control of the SABC which would ensure that that faction of the ANC has greater control of the state broadcaster. Yet, again, the public interest is being confused with the party's interests and, in this case, factions within the party.
It is disingenuous now for ANC MPs of the Portfolio Committee on Communications to move a vote of no confidence in the very board that it promoted last year. This only gives credence to concerns that it is because certain members of the board are seen to be Mbeki appointees, and find themselves within the wrong ANC camp.
The ACDP, whilst appreciating that certain board members did not meet the Act's criteria of independence from the government and other interests, will not be part of a witch-hunt against board members by factions within the ANC. For this reason, the ACDP will not support the recommended ANC motion or vote of no confidence. Thank you.
Voorsitter, almal in Suid-Afrika word deur 'n wet van hierdie Raad verplig om 'n televisielisensie te betaal. Watter seggenskap het Suid-Afrikaners daarna oor wat die SABC dan met hul geld maak? is die vraag. Dit is een van die redes waarom die SABC-raad verslag doen aan die Nasionale Vergadering, maar om 'n geloofwaardige en onafhanklike openbare uitsaaier te h, is dit baie belangrik dat dit baie duidelik moet wees dat daar 'n groot verskil is tussen "verslag doen aan" en "beheer uitoefen oor".
Sedert 1994 is ek lid van die portefeuljekomitee wat aanbevelings aan die President doen oor die aanstel van die SABC-raad. Tot onlangs het ek met entoesiasme daaraan deelgeneem en dit was 'n sinvolle oefening, waar kandidate op meriete oorweeg is en daar saam gekyk is na wat in die beste belang is van Suid-Afrikaanse radioluisteraars en televisiekykers. Die laaste keer - veral die laaste twee keer - was dit baie duidelik dat die ANC-lede baie spesifieke instruksies gekry het wie om aan te stel en wie nie, ongeag die meriete van 'n persoon of sy haglike vertoning in die onderhoud. Met daardie werkswyse mors u my tyd en u vernietig die SABC se geloofwaardigheid.
Nadat die arme ANC-lede van die komitee in November hulle opdragte van Minister Pahad uitgevoer het, en 'n raad aangestel het wat dan pro-Mbeki is, kies die ANC in Desember mnr Zuma in Limpopo. In April, drie maande later, kry dieselfde ANC-komiteelede nuwe opdragte. Nou moet die pro-Mbeki raad verwyder word en met 'n pro-Zuma raad vervang word. Wat 'n gekkespul! Waar hulle in Desember volle vertroue in die SABC-raadslede gehad het, het hulle in April skielik geen vertroue meer in hulle nie. Die ANC-lede is nou gedienstig aan die nuwe ANC-base.
Ek wil voorspel dat die Mbeki-raadslede en -werknemers, soos dr Zikalala, op die kort termyn waarskynlik gaan oorleef, maar die Zuma-ondersteuners op die lang termyn gaan wen. Maar in die groot prentjie, s ek vir u, in die proses vernietig u die geloofwaardigheid van die Parlement, van die portefeuljekomitee, van die SABC en van die openbare uitsaaier in Suid- Afrika. Dit is so jammer dat ons hierdie werkswyse op hierdie wyse volg. Ek dank u. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Dr C P MULDER: Chairperson, everyone in South Africa is compelled by an Act of this Assembly to pay for a television licence. The question arises: After they have done so, do South Africans have a say in the matter of how the SABC uses its money? This is one of the reasons why the SABC board reports to the National Assembly. However, in order to have a credible and independent public broadcaster, it is very important that it should be clear that there is a big difference between "reporting to" and "exercising control over".
Since 1994, I have been a member of the portfolio committee that makes recommendations to the President on the appointment of the SABC board. Until recently, I enthusiastically participated in this process. It was a meaningful exercise, where candidates were considered on merit and together we looked at what was in the best interests of South African radio listeners and television viewers.
The last time - especially on the last two occasions - it became clear that the ANC members had very specific instructions about who to appoint and who not, irrespective of the merits of that person or his poor performance during the interview. With such a modus operandi you are wasting my time and destroying the credibility of the SABC.
After the poor ANC members of the committee had executed their orders from Minister Pahad in November, and appointed a council that was pro-Mbeki, the ANC elected Mr Zuma in Limpopo in December. In April, three months later, the same ANC committee members received new orders. Now the pro-Mbeki board has to be removed and replaced with a pro-Zuma board. What foolishness! Whereas they had full confidence in the members of the SABC board in December, all of a sudden, in April, they had no confidence in them at all. The ANC members are now bowing to the new ANC bosses.
I want to make a prediction that the Mbeki board members and employees, like Dr Zikalala, will in the short term most probably survive, but the Zuma supporters will win in the long term. But, in the bigger picture, I am telling you, you are destroying the credibility of Parliament, the portfolio committee and the SABC, the public broadcaster in South Africa, in the process. It is such a pity that we are doing things this way. I thank you.]
Chairperson, hon Ministers and members, the FD will not support this report by the Portfolio Committee on Communications, for the following reasons.
Press freedom and the independence of the public broadcaster are concepts derived from the national values of open democracy and are protected by this country's Constitution.
The SABC is a public facility with a mandate to build the democratic ethos of the nation. It should operate above political influence and it should hold power independent of government authority.
The problem with the SABC simply is that it is in a power-sharing relationship with government with nowhere to escape. The SABC was an instrument of the previous apartheid government, and today it is similarly serving the present government. What has happened at Polokwane is that there was a power shift. Before, it was easy for the SABC to be its master's voice, but since there is a new master lurking in the shadows, the SABC no longer knows who the master's voice is. This report is an attempt to purge the SABC in preparation for the newly elected pro-Zuma ANC National Executive Council, NEC. It is therefore to be expected that in a monopoly-charged environment such as in government's overriding majority, struggle for power between factions will spill over into public arenas such as Parliament. The Portfolio Committee on Communications is an example of the way such hostility is displayed.
The issue is no longer about democratic governance but about political control over the instruments of government.
We may or may not have agreed with the President's appointment of the SABC board, neither may we have liked the way the CEO of the SABC conducts business or the manner in which he was dismissed, but neither is it responsible oversight on the part of the Portfolio Committee on Communications to wish to oust the SABC board. Such actions will set precedents for abuse of state power. Thank you.
Hon Chairperson, I'm not going to divert from what I wanted to say by responding to people who have nothing else to do in this Parliament except to listen to what the ANC says, and oppose it. These are people who have no constituencies, who are paid taxpayers' money, doing nothing for the community except to oppose the ANC. [Interjections.]
The only person I can respond to is hon Vos. At least there is something important that you've said; at least you agree with us that there are serious problems in the SABC. As for the rest, it is as if they have not spoken at all.
Since the leakage of the memorandum on 13 April 2008, the circus of the new SABC board was, again, on the front pages of the printed media and on the screens of the electronic media. The leakage opened a debate in the media that had partially subsided, a discussion on the representativity of the broad cross-section of our population on the SABC board.
Our alliance partners were amongst those organisations and individuals who criticised the composition of the SABC board. To our alliance partners, the absence of labour representatives was among their cause of dissatisfaction.
Despite all that was on air, as members of the ANC in that committee, we were aware of the difficulties that were faced both by the board and management. However, we gave them all the benefit of the doubt that they would overcome those obstacles and unite in performing their different mandates for a common objective. To our astonishment, only three members of the board appeared before the committee on 29 April 2008, and there were no valid reasons as to why the rest could not attend. This new board has only appeared before us once; it's a new board so I don't know what is usual about it. It would have been impossible to continue in the absence of other members of the board, especially because it was their second appearance before the committee. We also needed to be satisfied that the strategic plan was a product of a collective, despite rumours in the media that, in Auckland Park, the operating law was that of the jungle and that only the fittest survive. We sent them packing and demanded that the entire board and management be present when the meeting resumed the following day.
To our surprise, both the board and management were talking different languages on the issue of the memorandum. Our suspicion that the strategic plan might not have been done collectively was confirmed. It became clear that the new board rubberstamped what was essentially prepared by the previous board.
On the issue of the leaked memorandum, the chairperson appealed to the committee not to discuss it on the basis that it was being revised. The deputy chairperson supported the chairperson by saying that they realised that there were inaccuracies in the memorandum and might be contested. The board told us that the document would be brought to us when it had been finalised. However, we insisted that it had to be discussed.
It goes without saying that both the chairperson and the deputy of the SABC board misled Parliament because, amongst their reasons to suspend the group chief executive officer, GCEO, were things contained in the memorandum that were being revised, as it was not accurate according to them. Again, the chairperson's actions contradicted what she told the parliamentary committee. The management also complained bitterly about the treatment at the hands of the board, and the inability of the board to take them into confidence.
The management requested a meeting to workshop issues on corporate governance, and their expectations were duly turned down by the board. Their second request to meet with the board after the leakage of the memorandum was also rejected. Instead, the members of the management were individually ambushed and answers demanded to questions posed by the board.
We are not suggesting that the management is perfect and has no contribution to the mess in Auckland Park, nor are we projecting that the GCEO is the Angel Gabriel. However, the board has an authority over the SABC executives. The board has a duty to intervene strategically where it is necessary. It is the duty of the board to promote good corporate governance, and a healthy working relationship between management and members. The least we are expecting from the board is to be accused of being untrustworthy and of being champions of confusion and anarchy, instead of providing leadership.
We suspected that there might be victimisation of management by the board after the meeting of 30 April 2008, and we encouraged all those who needed to get things off their chests to do so without fear. We also appealed to the board not to act against management on the basis of the discussions of 30 April, as that would be tantamount to victimisation of the members of the executive and abuse of power. Once more, our suspicions were proven correct.
We carefully observed what was going on in front of us. It was clear from the contradictions between the board and management that they were antagonistic. It was also clear that the board failed in performing its constitutional mandate. It was, without doubt, because trust had broken between the board and management. On that basis, we had to pass a vote of no confidence in the board. [Interjections.] If we had legislative powers to fire or to dissolve the board, today they would only exist in the history books.
As if all this drama was not enough, a few days later, we learnt that the Head of News and Current Affairs had been suspended for insubordination and leaking of confidential documents. Again, a few days later, the board suspended the GCEO. The rest is history.
Who, in this august House, except the DA, is not convinced that there is no authority or control in the SABC? Who, in this House, is prepared to put his neck on the block and convince this House that this board is capable of exercising its mandated powers, except the DA? [Interjections.]
Section 15 of the Broadcasting Act of 1999 deals with the removal of the board. As it is now, it is very unclear, ambiguous, and is subject to many interpretations. The ANC will have no option, but to insist on the amendment of the law so that, in future, when such scenarios occur, we know exactly who has to do what, when and how. [Interjections.] The judgment against the SABC board chairperson and the board itself was absolutely scathing and cutting to say the least.
The Supreme Court judge said that "the conduct of Ms Mkhonza falls short of what is expected of an independent director who should act without fear and favour, and with integrity and honesty." These are harsh words, indeed. For a public official of a public broadcaster's integrity and honesty to be questioned by a Supreme Court judge is a serious indictment of the person and of the entire board.
The ANC cannot ignore the fact that the integrity and honesty of this chairperson and her board has been questioned by a Supreme Court. This is exactly what the committee had seen long before the hon judge came to the same conclusion. The ANC, therefore, wholeheartedly concurs with the hon judge, and hereby calls upon the chairperson, Ms Mkhonza, and her board to do the honourable thing and resign, so that the committee can speedily put in place a mechanism for the selection and the appointment of the new board, which will start on a clean slate and which will do its job in a manner that is consistent with the spirit, letter, and provisions of our Constitution and law. I thank you. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Before I recognise the Chief Whip, I am informed that some members of the board are here. You are welcome.
Chariperson, I move:
That the Report be noted.
Chairperson, I wonder if you can explain to us exactly, or whether the Chief Whip would explain exactly what that means, because normally the call is for the report to be adopted. He is asking for the report to be noted which, in other words, means that is it simply noted, and there is no need for us to adopt the report.
Hon member, I think you know that it's the procedure; either reports are noted or adopted. I'm not sure what it is that you are asking.
Chairperson, I ask you to please make absolutely certain that the Chief Whip of the ANC means what he says, and that is that the report will only be noted.
That's what I heard him saying - "noted".
Yes, honestly, Chairperson, I think Mr Ellis is very familiar with the procedures in this House. A report is either rejected, noted or adopted, and we've done that many times. I don't think that there's anything unusual.
What I heard, and let me repeat it, is that the Chief Whip of the Majority Party moved the motion that the report be noted.
Are there any objections? [Interjections.] Do I hear objections? There is no one standing to show their objections, so therefore, there's none. [Interjections.] Hon members, can we please proceed on this matter? I know it's very emotional for some of you, but we have to respect the House.
The IFP will like to note its objection to the report even being noted.
The IFP's objection will be noted.
The Federation of Democrats will also ...
Order, just a minute.
Is the objection by noting suggesting that it's adopted, from her point? [Interjections.]
You can come back to your point, and then I will come back to that.
Yes, Chairperson. Despite that it is merely noted, the FD would also want you to note its objection to the report. Thank you.
Order, hon members. I am just noting the objections, and there are two now. We proceed that it is agreed to with those two objections.
Chairperson, if you would allow me. Is it possible to withdraw a report, because the situation clearly is that the ANC has been humiliated by its own portfolio committee member and does not wish to accept the report. [Interjections.] I applaud that. But the fact that you are noting doesn't very clearly indicate that you are rejecting your own member's report, and that I applaud. Is it not possible simply to withdraw?
I don't know what the difficulty is today with a noted report. We've been doing this all these years, and either a report is rejected, noted or adopted. [Interjections.] The Chief Whip of the Majority Party stood and said that the report should be noted, and there were two objections to it. We've noted those objections. Can we proceed on that particular order?
Chairperson, to ensure that there is clarity, please note the rejection of the FF of the report. [Laughter.]
Thank you very much.
May I say, Sir, that the hon Nel is not entirely right. Very, very seldom do we simply note a report. Never, quite frankly, and he is making a desperate attempt to rescue his party from a particular situation that they have dug themselves into. But, in view of what other parties are doing, Mr Chairman, the DA would also like to have its objection to the notification of this report noted.
It is confusing because, obviously, the ACDP prefers it being noted to being accepted, but we will also register our objection to the whole thing.
Thank you very much. It is noted.
The ID would also like its opposition noted. Thank you.
Noted.
Chairperson, we'd also, as the UDM, like to register our objection to noting. Thank you. [Laughter.]
I think the report has already been noted. Those who have expressed their objections to the noting will be recorded. Therefore, the report is agreed to ... [Interjections.] ... with objections.
Chairperson, I rise on a point of order.
The motion is agreed to. Then the report ...
No, Chairperson. You have not put it to a vote. The motion is not agreed to.
THE HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Hon members, no one had called for that, because all of you were waiting for adoption. So now that the adoption did not come, the majority party said "noted".
Now, I think there's been that difficulty to say what it means. That is why hon Ellis even stood to ask what it means. Are we hearing it properly and all sorts of things? Now we have gone through that particular aspect, the objections of various parties have been noted. And then, therefore, the report is noted.
I would question how a report can be noted when only one party ...
The report is noted.
One party notes is. The rest of the Parliament does not note it.
Well, I don't have to say how many. The report is noted, and then the objections are also noted. Thank you. [Interjections.]
Alright, hon members, I will be going on to the next Order, because no one is calling for a division. So, the Secretary will read the last Order of the day. [Interjections.]
Hon Chairman, what are we going to divide on, Sir?
You said noted.
The report has been noted. You want us to divide on whether it should be noted or not. But you are saying ...
I am just saying that I am proceeding now, because the report is noted, with the objections noted, and that's it. [Interjections.]
But you raised the issue, sir. You raised the issue of a division. Now we are not calling a division, because we are not adopting this report in this House; we are only noting it. That is fine. Motion agreed to (Inkatha Freedom Party, Federal Democrats, Freedom Front Plus, Democratic Alliance, Independent Democrats, African Christian Democratic Party and United Democratic Movement dissenting).
Report accordingly noted.