South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport Amendment Bill; PANSALB interview deliberations

Meeting report

The Chairperson said that the Committee had asked the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport to liaise with the World Anti-Doping Agency ( WADA) on if the proposed South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) Amendment Bill was aligned to the WADA Code. She called on the Parliamentary Legal Advisor to speak to this as well as present the list of Committee proposed amendments (A-List).

WADA response to proposed amendments to SAIDS Amendment Bill
Adv Adielah Arnold, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, said that the SAIDS Amendment Bill had been shared with WADA. In the WADA confirmation notice of 19 March 2024 it had stated that the amendments were in line with the Code. It was contingent on the formal adoption of list of amendments proposed by the Committee coupled with the relevant wording of the Bill. WADA commented that South Africa could consider the matter resolved only when the amendments required to bring the SAIDS Act in line with the World Anti-Doping Code have been formally adopted and published in the Government Gazette and subsequently entered into. Notwithstanding this confirmation of compliance, if it came to WADA's attention through its monitoring of the implementation of the SAIDS legislation that further amendments were necessary, than nothing would prevent WADA from requesting those amendments.
Adv Arnold said that it thus appeared there was compliance with the Code. WADA would continue to monitor compliance and required that the Bill had to be adopted and appear in the Government Gazette.

WADA had proposed a few amendments to Section 17. These amendments were incorporated into the A-List.

Committee proposed amendments (A-List) for SAIDS Amendment Bill
The newly proposed amendments by WADA were on page 5 of the A-List.

WADA proposed that the wording international standards in Section 17(2) and international standard athletes in Section 17(6) be capitalised. It should thus read International Standards and International Standard Athletes. WADA explained that since these terms were defined in Section 1 it had to be denoted in capital letters.

WADA said that Section 17(2)(a) and 17(3)(a) of the Bill provided for the establishment of the Anti-Doping Appeals Board, but it was silent on the transitional arrangements for current cases before SAIDS. WADA noted that there was a case currently before SAIDS. This necessitated that a provision be put in place which indicated that the Bill would not affect the outcome of current cases before SAIDS. The principal Act had already established the Appeals Board. At present, the Independent Anti-Doping Hearing Panel was not provided for in the legislation. Allowances thus had to be made through additional amendments.

Section 17(2)(a) was thus amended to read: There is hereby established by the Institute a first instance hearing panel named the Independent Doping Hearing Panel which has jurisdiction in the first instance to hear and determine if an athlete or other person subjected to the anti-doping rules of the Institute has committed an anti-doping rule violation and if applicable impose relevant consequences.

Section 17(7) had also be amended to include the transitional arrangements for the Independent Doping Hearing Panel. It now read that: Any proceedings pending before the Independent Doping Hearing Panel at the commencement of this Act must be continued and conducted in terms of this Act in the Independent Doping Hearing Panel, and for the purpose those proceedings are deemed to have been instituted in terms of this Act in the Independent Doping Hearing Panel. These amendments catered to WADA's request that certainty and clarity be provided on those matters already before the Independent Doping Hearing Panel.

The various legal representatives were of the opinion that there was no need for transitional arrangements for the Anti-Doping Appeals Board as it already existed in the principal Act. The Board had been properly constituted as per the discretionary appointment powers of the Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture.

On Clause 10, it was noted that the term “SASCOC" was substituted with the expression “Sports Confederation”. WADA had raised a query if South Africa confirmed that the principal Act as well as the 2006 Amendment Act were therefore not amended. This seemed to indicate that there was some confusion on WADA's part as the purpose of Clause 10 was to amend the principal Act. The word SASCOC appeared in Sections 3 as well as 11 of the principal Act.

Sections 3 and 11 would not be amended as the proposed amendment to Clause 10 in the A-List stated that once the Act became operational, SASCOC should be substituted for Sports Confederation.

Department and SAIDS response to proposed amendments
The Chairperson asked the Department and SAIDS to comment on what was presented.

Mr Khalid Galant, SAIDS CEO, asked the SAIDS legal representative to comment.

Ms Wafeeqa Begg, SAIDS legal manager, said that SAIDS was in agreement with what was presented and that it was thoroughly discussed. SAIDS was confident that this was the best outcome after WADA's comments were received.

Ms Sumayya Khan, DSAC Deputy Director General, said that once the Committee had given the green light on 15 March 2024 for the Bill to be sent to WADA for comment, the Department supported the recommendation that SAIDS should forward the Bill to the African division of WADA. DSAC political as well as departmental leadership were kept in the loop.

On 19 March 2024, WADA had reverted with their inputs. The Department then liaised with Adv Arnold as well as Ms Begg on the way forward. The Department's legal representatives had provided their inputs at 6 am. At 8 am a meeting was convened with all relevant stakeholders and at 11 am the final draft A-List was disseminated to relevant stakeholders. The Department had agreed with the amendments.

The Chairperson noted that political parties now had the opportunity to brief their caucuses on the finalised SAIDS Amendment Bill.

A-List: adoption
The Chairperson presented the A-List to Members for adoption.

Ms R Adams (ANC) used the opportunity to thank all those involved with the legislative process. She supported what was presented.

Mr D Joseph (DA) agreed with Ms Adams and asked what the next step was in the process.

The Chairperson said that the B version of the Bill would now be compiled and adopted by the Committee on Monday, 25 March 2024 after which the Committee Report would appear in the ATC and placed on the agenda of the National Assembly.

The Chairperson added that the legislative process had not been “child's play” and that stakeholders were busy straight through the weekend. The Committee was ending the Sixth Term on a high note.

Ms Zoleka Kula, the Parliamentary Procedural Officer said that it was not procedural for Members to only agree to the A-List. Members had to formally adopt the A-List.

The Chairperson then called on Members to formally consider and adopt the A-List.

Ms Adams moved adoption and Mr Joseph seconded the adoption.

The A-List was thus formally adopted.

The Chairperson appreciated the great support structure of the parliamentary support staff.

The Department and SAIDS were excused from the meeting.

Pan South African Language Board (PANSALB) interviews: deliberations
The Chairperson said that the Committee was meeting to consider nominations to PANSALB on the eve of Human Rights Day. South Africa's democratic government had declared 21 March 2024 in honour of those who fought and paid for their lives to bring about the rights South Africans enjoyed today. These rights were underscored in the Bill of Rights as contained in the South African Constitution. Amongst these rights was an emphasis on multilingualism which allowed each citizen to participate in South African daily life. PANSALB was a manifestation of this right. It was thus fitting that the Committee had the opportunity to interview and recommend candidates to the Minister for appointment to PANSALB.

The Chairperson requested the procedural staff to pronounce on the next steps.

Ms Jabu Mtiya, Committee Secretary said that Members had completed their scoring of interview candidates. Members should now name their preferred candidates for nomination to the Minister. The Committed should decide how many names they want to propose to the Minister. The draft Committee Report was ready.

Dr Herman Tembe would take Members through the vetting process. State security clearances for interviewees had not yet been provided. The Committee Report would be populated as the meeting progressed.

The Chairperson asked Members to pronounce on their favourite candidates.

Mr Zondi listed his preferences: Lesle Jansen, Fio Dlavane, Dakalo Takalani, Nomakhosazana Rasana, Xolani Khohliso…

Ms V Malomane (ANC) interjected on a point of clarification. Members had already read out their scores the previous day. The Committee Secretariat was supposed to provide a report on these final scores. She had expected the report before deliberations commenced.

The Chairperson said that Ms Malomane was correct. The Secretariat had to provide guidance on how to proceed.

Mr Mtiya replied that Dr Tembe was the correct person to respond to this. On the vetting of the candidates, the candidates' fingerprints and ID documents were received. These were forwarded to Parliament's security unit for onward transmission to the State Security Agency.

Dr Herman Tembe, Legal Officer: Office on Institutions Supporting Democracy in the Speaker's Office, recalled from previous experience that vetting took considerable time. Another Portfolio Committee had also waited for security clearances, only to have three of their 21 nominees denied a clearance. The SSA only conducted screenings when it came to presidential appointments. The vetting process was more detailed and took three months whereas security screenings were much quicker. He proposed that Ms Mtiya should send a follow-up request to a Mr Stevens at SSA to expedite the vetting process.

The second option available entailed that the Committee adopt the Report with the proviso that the SSA clearances were still outstanding. “It may happen that some nominees might have adverse findings”. Should this happen, the whole process could be sullied. These candidates were nominated to hold influential positions that conferred fiduciary powers. They were essentially Directors. Section 71 of the Companies Act of 2008 prescribed who was eligible to serve as Directors. PANSALB was also governed by the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), the King Rules, the Constitution as well as the PANSALB Act.

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked Dr Tembe and asked Members to pose questions to Dr Tembe. Then Members could continue listing their preferred candidates
Mr E Mthetwa (EFF) said that he was satisfied with the responses. He noted the scoring exercise that Members had undertaken the previous day. He was of the view that what the Chairperson proposed was a repeat of the previous day's exercise of Members listing their preferred candidates. He asked that the Secretariat inform Members who the top scorers were. Those who had received 4.5 to 5 were automatically nominated. It was futile to start afresh.

The Chairperson said that the first 10 should be the top scorers and that Members should list their preferences.

Ms Malomane asked what would happen if the Committee chose the second option that Dr Tembe proposed, only for the SSA to deny clearances to some nominees.

Ms Malomane also stated her opposition to the listing of the candidates by name. She did not think that it was a good idea, unless the previous day's scoring exercise was now nullified.

The Chairperson said that Ms Malonane was correct and asked the Secretariat to present their findings.

Dr Tembe agreed with Ms Malomane about the SSA vetting presenting a “point of appointment conundrum". The Committee would essentially adopt a draft Committee Report since there was the outstanding vetting results. The Committee was racing against time. Should any adverse findings be picked up by the SSA, it would reflect on the conduct of the Committee. It would then be difficult to apply for a special sitting of the National Assembly. Dr Tembe again recalled a previous experience where an SSA report with adverse findings was received which had delayed matters.

Deliberations
The Chairperson asked Members to list their preferred candidates again.

Mr Zondi again listed his preferred candidates.

Mr Mthetwa called a point of order. He repeated that Members had to consider the scoring report that the Secretariat had drafted. Those candidates who had scored 5 should automatically be included on the nomination list. It was not necessary to list the names. He recalled that eight candidates had received 4.5 to a 5 and six candidates 4 to 4.5 and five candidates had received 3.5 to 4.

The Chairperson asked that the Secretariat provide their input. The draft Committee Report was already available.

Mr Zondi asked if it would not be better if Members provided guidance to the Chairperson.

The Chairperson said that she did not have a problem with the proposal but the differing views from Members necessitated that the Secretarial should provide inputs.

Mr Zondi said that both Ms Malomane and Mr Mthetwa had talked sense and provided direction.

The Chairperson said that she did not see a problem with Members' input as the Secretariat was tasked to compile the Report.

Ms D Sibiya (ANC) said that Members were now being told not to quote numbers but only names. She asked what was so difficult about listing the names.

Ms Adams agreed with Ms Sibiya.

Ms Malomane called a point of order. She again requested that the Secretariat present the report on the final scores. Members were supposed to vote on the Report provided.

The Chairperson called on the Content Advisor to present the Report.

Committee final scores for PANSALB interviews
Ms Fiona Clayton, Content Advisor, said that eight candidates scored between 4.5 to 5. The scores were as follows and based on their assigned number:
Candidate 2 : 4.9
Candidate 5 : 4.8
Candidate 8 : 4.9
Candidate 12 : 4.9
Candidate 16: 5
Candidate 18: 5
Candidate 22: 4.8
Candidate 23: 4.8

Six candidates had received 4.0 to 4.5. These candidates were as follows.
Candidate 4 : 4.1
Candidate 6 : 4.4
Candidate 11: 4.3
Candidate 17: 4.1
Candidate 21: 4.1
Candidate 24: 4.1

Five candidates had received 3.5 to 4.0. These candidates were as follows.
Candidate 9: 3.8
Candidate 10: 3.6
Candidate 13: 3.6
Candidate 15: 3.8
Candidate 20: 3.6

These three categories brought the total to 19 nominations.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that the presentation provided a way forward to Members.

Mr Mthetwa said that the presentation had made the Committee's work much easier. He proposed that the Committee should nominate all 19 to the Minister for consideration.

The Chairperson agreed with the proposal.

Ms Malomane also agreed.

Mr Zondi supported the suggestion as well.

Mr Joseph supported the proposal. The Secretariat had compiled a Committee Report that detailed the scores. He noted that if the Committee had to wait for the SSA, it would mean that the Seventh Parliament would have to start the process again from scratch.

Mr Joseph said that he was now ready to list his 20 names.

At this juncture, Mr Mthetwa called for point of order.

The Chairperson did not allow the point of order and said that Mr Joseph had to be given the time to finish his comments. Divergent viewpoints had to be entertained as well.

The Chairperson said to Mr Joseph that Members' individual preferences were not required anymore as Ms Clayton had already presented the draft Committee Report. The majority of Members had already endorsed the Report.

Mr Mthetwa raised meeting procedure. The Committee had already agreed to the process that should be followed. The Secretariat had consolidated the scores and presented the Report. Members were not expected to pronounce on their individual nominations anymore.

Ms Malomane said that she was covered and that the majority of Members were in support of the recommendations.

Ms Adams agreed and said that she was satisfied with the presentation by Ms Clayton.

Mr Joseph said that he had kept quiet in the meeting and never raised an opinion. He was supposed to speak after Mr Zondi and waited for the debate to finish so that he could list his preferences. Since the debate was already closed, he chose to reserve his rights as a DA member.

The Chairperson replied that after deliberations she had made a ruling that Members would not be required to list their 20 preferences anymore. Instead, the Secretariat was asked to present the Report. The presentation had provided guidance to Members.

Dr Tembe said that the Committee had to be cognizant of the Protection of Personal Information (POPI) Act.

Additionally, the PANSALB Act was very clear about the skill set to be met by nominees. The PANSALB Act listed eight skills. If the Committee was satisfied that these had been met then 20 names should be submitted to the Minister for consideration.

The eight skills included that nominees should be fit and proper persons representative of the diversity of South Africa's official languages, be South African citizens, be supportive of South Africa's multilingual society and possess language skills in interpreting, translation, terminology, lexicography, literacy teaching, language planning or have a financial or legal background with special knowledge of language legislation. If these criteria had been met then the Committee could adopt the Report with the proviso that the SSA clearance certificates were outstanding.

Previously 15 names were recommended to the Minister of which 13 were appointed. There has to be compliance with the PANSALB Act which said that 20 names should be recommended.

The Chairperson replied that the Committee had complied with the criteria noted by Dr Tembe. She did not want to open the matter for debate again as Members were expected to attend a hybrid House sitting.

Mr Joseph said that he respected the Chairperson's ruling and therefore he would not be commenting. The DA however reserved its right.

Ms Sibiya asked how many names the Committee would recommend.

Ms Clayton replied that the Minister had to appoint no fewer than 11 and no more than 15 people to PANSALB.

The Chairperson thanked Members for their attendance and adjourned the meeting.