SABC Board status inquiry: Day 3

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed participants to the third day of the inquiry into the status of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) board. He then handed over the word to Mr Harry Mathabathe.

Department of Communications (DoC) submission
Mr Harry Mathabathe, Deputy Director General (DDG): Finance and Information and Communications Technologies, DoC, said that one of his main responsibilities was to ensure that State Owned Enterprises (SOE) were compliant with the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and company law. The non-compliance challenges at the SABC were understood by the Government as challenges in the area of finance and budget control. These management capacity challenges had not begun with the new board but two or three years back. The Board was appointed in January 2008 and it had at the time received an induction into the SABC and its PFMA responsibilities by the late Minister of Communications Dr Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri, to ensure that they were up to speed with those issues. In late February 2008 a letter had been sent from the DoC to the Chairperson of the SABC Board further detailing the challenges the board was facing in terms of the PFMA. Fifteen months later some of those challenges still remained.

The corporate plans of the entity were a very important responsibility of the Accounting Officer, which in the case of the SABC was its Board. In terms of the PFMA corporate plans had to be submitted to the DoC within a month before the financial year begins. The corporate plan would contain key performance areas which would translate into a shareholders’ compact between the Minister and the Board. The corporate plans had not been submitted in time by the Board in 2008. If an entity started the financial year without a corporate plan it could not exercise its compliance with the PFMA. The plans were finally submitted in April but had to be sent back for correction.

The main problems with the plans were: the revenue growth prediction was very ambitious; the budget showed a loss of R500 million without providing a funding plan; and it had planned for receiving the funds required for the opening of international news bureaus but had not yet secured such funding. Similarly the required funding for the Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) had not been underpinned by detailed plans. These funding requirements would have to be approved by the Minister of Finance and the National Assembly and therefore detailed plans were crucial to ensure they were granted. The financing cycle within the SABC was entirely wrong: it planned to receive the money in the same financial year that it submitted the plans to the DoC but at that time the funds had not even been approved.

These matters were raised with some members of the Board on 17 April 2008 and the revised corporate plan was submitted in August 2008. There remained some challenges with the revised plans but it was approved with the condition that the misalignment of the funding requests and the strategies was corrected. The plans were approved at the end of October 2008, six months before the end of the financial year, under the condition that the problem areas were revised and resubmitted to the DoC. To date the re-submissions had not been received.

Some of the challenges faced by the SABC had remained this year, and the DoC had advised the new Minister, Gen (Ret) Siphiwe Nyanda, that there were challenges with the corporate plan and problems with the fund requesting cycle. This year’s plan had been discussed by the Minister and the executive and the plan was currently being considered. The main thing was that the same issues had been raised again and again to try to correct the problems with the SABC. The other five entities under the DoC got their plans approved in time, so the SABC represented an exception.

The annual budget was another problem. The planning for the budget was very bad, and in the last two financial years it could not be submitted to the National Treasury since it was received late by the Department. Although the National Treasury provided guidelines on the annual budget only shortly before its due date, the entities could use previous years’ guidelines to start preparing for the budget. Once the guidelines were published workshops should be held on them ensuring that they were fully comprehended and complied with. In preparation of the last year’s budget, the Board members had been asked on the last day before the deadline to come in and finalise the budget with the DoC.

Discussions had been had with the SABC Board regarding several issues. Firstly they noted that the SABC should focus on its core business instead of its call centre, the production of Bafana Bafana t-shirts and so on. Secondly the problem with the funding requirements for the DTT migration remained. Other entities such as Sentech had already been granted 90% of their funding but the SABC had not been granted anything yet. Thirdly the convening of Annual General Meeting (AGM) was not up to standard; the DoC had been notified of the AGM very late and the quality of the documentation was poor, which the Chairperson of the Board had been informed about. On the financial crisis, it was clear that it was a major challenge and the main cost drivers were: personnel expenditure; the incorrect financing cycle of the news bureaus; the use of consultants and finally the amortisation of sports rights. During the AGM last year it was indicated that while the SABC was showing a profit the International Financial Recording Standards IFRS required a once-off payment of R420 million. However, the profit was not what it should have been so contingency measures should have been implemented.

It had been decided that all the SOEs should have independent governance reviews. The SABC review had to be delayed due to the problems with the Group Chief Executive Officer (GCEO) but it had since been carried out and everyone should by now have seen the report. Its findings were that the SABC needed to strengthen its relationship with the DoC; the relationship should be proactive rather than reactive and the SABC needed to acknowledge its responsibility to compile and submit reports timeously to the Department. The Minister had subsequently written a letter requesting a plan dealing with the findings of the report but such a plan had not yet been received.

As Mr Khumalo had pointed out yesterday, hindsight was always 20:20 and it was clear that the DoC could also have done better and more to solve the problems at the SABC. But considering the background it was clear that no single body had complete oversight of the SABC. The selection of the Board was Parliament’s responsibility, the appointing fell under the President and the day to day oversight was the responsibility of the Minister of Communications. Perhaps the legislation should be reviewed. He agreed with the sentiment that the SABC needed to be turned around immediately. The suggestion of a forensic report was perhaps not the right way to start, since there had already been many investigations. Rather a panel of experts should be appointed to address the problems in light of the findings of previous investigations. Finally he pointed out that all the allegations made could be backed up by documented letters between the DoC and the SABC and so on.

Discussion
Mr B Holomisa (UDM) said that the Board members should respond to the allegation of non-submissions of reports.

Ms J Kilian (COPE) agreed and added that she also wanted to further question the DDG.

Ms R Morutoa (ANC) asked if there were minutes from the meetings alluded to. She also wanted to know why they had come to the conclusion that the AGMs had not been legitimate.

Mr Mathabathe responded that they had minutes of the meetings and those would be sent to the Chairperson. About the AGMs, the challenge was the matter in which it was convened. The DoC had had to remind the SABC to waiver its 21 days’ notice, which was the SABC’s responsibility. They had also found that the documents had not been received in time and the quality of the documents had been poor. Thus one could not properly prepare for the AGM.

Ms Christine Qunta, acting Chairperson of the SABC Board, said that she had not been informed that the DoC had been invited to present to this inquiry. This related to the problems raised the previous day about the fairness of the process. The letter of invitation to the inquiry had said that the inquiry was in terms of the recent resignations. But in fact many complaints about the Board had been raised which were outside the terms of the inquiry. Now the opinion of the DoC had been heard, but the Board had not had adequate notice of this so as to prepare a response. In many of these issues, the management was the operational body and although the Board had the oversight responsibility, it was unfair to expect the Board to be knowledgeable about all the details without having first prepared. It was very awkward to sit and answer these types of questions. Perhaps Mr Gab Mampone, acting GCEO of the SABC, could answer to the allegations relating to the corporate plans. The Board had had four meetings with the executive management on the budget and the corporate plans, but in the end the management was the body that prepared these documents. She was surprised that the plans had not been submitted on time. Once again she wanted to request the Committee that they allow the Board to submit written, substantiated responses to the questions raised.

Mr Mathabathe clarified that the current budget had been submitted on time, although it showcased many of the same problems as the previous budget.

Ms Khanyi Mkhonza, former Chairperson of the SABC Board, said that the minutes from the Board meeting in March 2008 and 2007 showed that PFMA compliance issues were the late report submissions, the budget deficit and the bad quality of the documents. The Board had realised that it was very important to ensure that documents were submitted on time and had strived to make sure that in 2009 they were. When it came to an investigation into the problems of the SABC it could be seen that the key problem was the quality of the information. Either the information had been badly prepared or withheld. The key issue this year had been the sports channel. When it had been presented, management had requested R279 million for the channel, which was analogue, without even presenting a business plan. Why would the Board want to spend so much money on an analogue channel when the DTT migration was looming in the near future? However, although the Board did not agree with the corporate plans, it submitted them to ensure that it was received in time by the DoC.

Mr Gab Mampone, acting Group CEO of the SABC, said that so far he had been listening quietly to what had been said. They had a serious problem on their hand and who was in the wrong and who was in the right was immaterial. The relationship with the DDG was historical. It was clear that there had been problems and they needed to own up to several interactions during which the problems with the documents had been raised by the DoC. Throughout these interactions it had been clear that something had to be done with respect to the documents sent to the DoC. They had to find a way to interact with the DoC that was satisfactory and he had personally been involved in trying to resolve the issue on the quality of the documents. It was important to admit that wrongs had happened. However, the SABC executive was also left wanting. Both the management and the Board had to own up; it was time that half-truths were done away with and that the parties stopped being defensive. It had to be understood that X Y and Z had not been done in order for the organisation to move forward. One of the biggest challenges, as outlined by the DDG, was how could the SABC complain about not receiving funding when it did not submit its funding requirements on time? That was the truth! Moving forward they had to deal with these issues. However the DDG had been a bit harsh in his statement because there had been a vast improvement in the documents. In any case they all had to take collective responsibility for the situation and the defensive comments had to come to an end. 

Mr Bheki Khumalo, SABC Board member, said that the point was that issues of bureaucracy had been put under the microscope during the past year because of the cost drivers. He had made his critical stance public knowledge. The inefficiencies in the News Department did not just relate to the international bureaus but also to the organisation of the office. There were too many freelancers and too much spend on news gathering. There had been an R80 million overspend on the bureaus alone. Ms Serobe had made the cost escalation her personal subject. All the bureaus had to be kept to their budgets; everyone agreed on the honourable motivation behind the international bureaus but the project had to be financially viable. To deal with the issues at hand, costs had to be brought dow. Three bureaus were already being rationalised and brought under the original house.

Mr Sipho Sithole, head of group strategy and risk at the SABC, responded to the issue of the submission of the corporate plans in 2008. The plans had in fact been ready in time but they had not been submitted because the newly appointed Board had not had time to approve them by the deadline since they had only met at the end of March 2008. A letter had been written to require a waiver of the deadline and they had received a response acknowledging that the plan could not be submitted if it had not been approved by the Board. The content was another issue, because a submission was a submission. They did receive the signed shareholders’ compact in August and responded to the issues as highlighted by the DoC. About the letter by the Minister, it had been sent after the due date and the required response was provided by management in their quarterly report. This year’s corporate plans had been submitted on 29 February 2009 but revisions had had to be made due to DTT issues.

Mr Andile Mbeki, SABC Board member, said that he wanted to state for the record that from the Board’s point of view they had tried very hard to honour the deadlines. He had some institutional memory and in November/December 2007 when there was a risk that the corporate plans and business plans would not be ready in time, the Board had requested management that it cut the holidays to ensure the deadlines were honoured. He agreed that the DoC had to take part of the ownership of the situation, since there had been serious leadership problems at the Department and at the Ministry. It was wrong to say that the SABC had not submitted the reports on time when in fact the Department had ignored its appeal to waiver the deadlines. He had held back many of his views so far to avoid finger pointing since this did not help. There had been instances when the Board had earnestly appealed for decisions to be made and the Department had utterly failed to lead. It could have made strong and decisive decisions which could have turned the SABC around. So they all had to take some responsibility, including the House. It also had to be said that these issues were not in line with the invitation of the inquiry and the DoC presentation was factually incorrect, but if they were to reply to it on a line by line basis they would be going into the route of the inquiry and they had said that they reserved their right to do that.

Adv J De Lange (ANC) said that the previous day had gone so well. The conversation had been opened and they had started to hear about the problem of communication between management and the Board. About the invitation to the inquiry it had stated that the inquiry was to be carried out in terms of 15A(1)(b) which meant that it aimed to establish the Board’s fitness as a collective on three grounds, which had been repeated about 300 times already, one of them being its capacity to carry out its fiduciary duties. However it was very difficult to determine whether or not the SABC Board had carried out its fiduciary duties. In order to do so, the Committee would have to go into the whole inquiry of who did what and it could take years to check all the information. At this point, most members had admitted that the Board was not functional and therefore the Committee should concentrate on the legal status of the Board and its functionality. If the Board was not functional, it would not be able to carry out its fiduciary duties in the future. Establishing that, would be enough to dissolve the Board.

He said that on the matter of process, if there were questions that the Board members felt they could not answer, they were welcome to answer those in writing later. He could accept that they reserved their rights; any good lawyer would do that within an inquiry, but to try to question the inquiry now was to take a step backwards. Instead the Board should help the Committee to understand what the problems were. Already there was a dispute since the GCEO said that the DDG of the DoC had been right in what he had said and Board members disputed the factual correctness of his presentation. The Committee was aware of this, but they simply wanted to put the issues on the table. If they could not bring finality to the functionality of the Board then the Committee was not doing their duty, however they did not want to have to subpoena the members to do that.

It had already been conceded that the problems went deeper than the Board; legislation, funding models, and policies all needed to be re-looked at. This was what the Committee wanted to address and the views of the Board were invaluable to achieve this. However, the first responsibility was to create legal certainty that the Board could and was acting as the accounting officer. As it was now he did not know what was going on in the SABC. He did not know if contracts were entered into that should not be entered into, he did not know if money was spent were it should not be spent. Three years in a row there had been problems with the budget; they had not even had a budget. Normally for a Department or government entity the budget was the top priority. It would be made sure that it asked for ten times what the entity wanted so that it received what it needed. In the case of the SABC, individual Board members been called by the DoC to draft the budget at the last minute; he could not believe it when he heard this. So the inquiry had already helped immensely and he appealed that it continue and any questions that Board members could not answer now they could answer in writing at a later stage. All issues raised so far had been pertinent to the three grounds in the 15A(1)(b), however they should try to limit the range of questions to the functionality of the Board.

Ms P De Lille (ID) said that she had a problem with the DDG’s suggestion that they look at the existing documents and investigations and try to implement their findings. That would mean asking the same people (the Board and the management) who had previously failed to implement the findings to now go back and do so. Generally she was concerned that what was missing was accountability; people had gotten away with mistakes with impunity. There had been no mention of sanctions when the Board or the management had ignored each other. There needed to be consequences for mistakes. Where did the buck stop? With the Minister, with the Department or with the Committee? Who was to take the responsibility? She agreed that there needed to be a collective responsibility between the Board and the management. If the Board had failed to carry out its fiduciary duty, or the executive management had failed to carry out its duty, what were the sanctions? If the SABC was to be turned around with the same persons in charge, clear sanctions had to be instituted.

Mr N Van Den Berg (DA) was glad that they had gotten some insight into the happenings in the Board and the executive. One thing was clear, relationships that were broken could not be fixed. The main problems in the SABC were the relationships; the relationship between the executive and the Board; the executive and the DoC and so on. The inquiry could be successful if the allegations stopped flying around the floor. It was also clear that the Committee could not fix the relationship in this case. Minister Nyanda could not tell the parties to sort out their relationships. It was like putting two fighting children in a room and only let them out when they had made friends. Perhaps they should send the Board, the executive and the DoC to Robben Island and only pick them up once they had sorted out their relationship.

The Chairperson joked and asked if they could all agree to that solution.

Ms Kilian said that she partially supported what previous members had said but she also had other concerns. At this stage of the crisis they needed to come up with a realistic turnaround plan. From the 2008 Annual Report it could be seen that employee benefits had grown by 38.24% and there had surely been earlier indications of that kind; why had the DoC not identified this as a major concern in terms of SABC’s liquidity? The Board had inherited a messy situation, why had the DoC not intervened before the crash came if it all had been so evident? She could understand that the plans were approved late and so on, but that in itself was an indication of the problems. Lines and roles of responsibilities were fudgy; how could parties be held accountable to the PFMA? It was too easy to cast blame. If the Committee decided to dissolve the Board it would lead them nowhere because the problems with the SABC would remain. What did the DoC intend to do? A group of experts had to go in to formulate a turnaround plan and all managers and Board members would have to submit themselves completely to the process in order for it to be successful.

Minister Nyanda said that he agreed with the sentiment of not casting blame whether to the Board, to the executive, the Department or the Committee. They all shared some responsibility for the sorry mess they found themselves in. They now needed to move beyond that to find a solution. The process should not be an inquisition but rather should aim to find out if the Board was able to do their work in the current environment. The Board was where it was partly because of politics, partly because of how it had been treated and partly because of mistakes in its appointment. Management itself also had problems.

A direct response to the question of blame was that the buck stopped with the Minister and the ministry had not engaged with the SABC to the extent that they should have, but it was important to look beyond that to find solutions. He had indicated in his budget, and had asked the Minister of Finance, that they really needed to help the SABC out. A team of experts needed to be brought in to effect the turnaround. But first the issue of the Board’s capacity needed to be settled. The Board needed to tell the Committee whether they were honestly capable of taking the SABC forward, filling senior positions at the executive management, going through an audit and so on, considering that so many of them had resigned, some with immediate effect.

The Chairperson thanked the Minister saying that his words were important and that they were words of wisdom. Did the Board want to respond? Did they have the capacity to deal with the immediate crisis and were they able turn the SABC around? They were coming close to being able to conclude their deliberations. As a Committee, they needed to decide how to move forward.

Mr Holomisa (UDM) said that the inquiry had been sparked due to the resignations of the Board members. With the SABC’s problems, they could see a pattern emerging over the years; namely the Board members were made sacrificial lambs. They had to thank the current Board for standing up and telling the Committee about the bad decisions made by management that had cost the SABC much money. Any decision taken by the Committee had to be holistic and perhaps they themselves or the DoC should review the structure of the SABC and do a skills audit of the executive management at group level. Such a report should also reveal whether the current content reflected the full mandate of the public broadcaster.

He said that while the review was underway the DoC and the Committee should work closely with management and the Board to avoid the deepening of the problems and specifically the labour dispute. The fixing of the problems of the SABC would not happen overnight. A Parliamentary task team needed to advise them on what type of public broadcaster would be the best for the country. It should look at broader issues such as rules and regulations, appointment procedures and legislation in order to advise the Committee on the ideal structure for the public broadcaster.

Mr S Kholwane (ANC) said that from the ANC’s side they felt that they had gone through the process and needed to move towards a closure so that, as a Committee, they could deliberate on the findings of the inquiry. Board members should be able to make written submissions that should be taken into account when the Committee decided on how to proceed. It therefore needed to be decided by when such submissions had to be handed in. Since Board members had requested the opportunity to hand in written submissions already last week, they should have started preparing such documents already. Perhaps, in light of this and the urgency of the matter, the deadline should be tomorrow. Then the Committee could reconvene on Friday and make a recommendation. After the Committee had reached a decision, it needed to be submitted to the National Assembly so that it could be deliberated on there in the next week. Since there were scheduling issues, they needed to move on as soon as possible. If there were no further submissions perhaps the Committee could even decide later during the day.

Ms Qunta said that she really wanted to respond to some of the issues that had been raised. Ms Serobe, Ms Gilwald and herself wanted to give their input. She said that the legal issue was of fundamental importance. Mr De Lange seem to believe that the mere mentioning of Section 15A (1)(b) was sufficient to include all matters mentioned in that section into the inquiry. Not even a first year law student would accept that argument. The letter contained two sections: firstly to inquire the status of the Board and secondly to determine its capacity to carry out its fiduciary duties. However these grounds were qualified by the resignations. Since the subject matter was delimited in the letter it could not be expanded on during the inquiry. Doing so amounted to a legal ambush. She really wanted to appeal to the Committee to realise the implications of what it was doing.

The Chair interjected on a point of order. He wanted to appeal that Ms Qunta should not disrespect any Members of the Committee. They wanted the process to go on in a responsible and dignified way without questioning the integrity of any person and it had not been fair of her to question Adv De Lange’s legal or intellectual abilities.

Ms Qunta apologised and said that it had not been her intention to do so.

Mr Holomisa had a point of order and he said that it was on the same issue as the Chairperson about disrespecting Adv De Lange. Also Ms Qunta kept on debating the issue of the inquiry which did not take the process forward. She could raise this in a written submission.

Ms Qunta pointed out she was still on the floor and wanted to continue. She ensured that she was not taking the process back by discussing the fairness of the inquiry, but she would leave it at that for the written submissions. She also pointed out that allowing the Board members to provide written submissions did not correct the fundamental flaws in the process. In order to provide the written statements, she wanted the Committee to provide a list of questions and issues to respond on. She also said that they would require sufficient time to complete their submissions. Two or three days would not be enough. They were on the Board part time and had their own businesses to run. In order to prepare the submissions, they would need the help of the SABC management to retrieve the relevant documents and would therefore need at least one to two weeks to do so.

The Chairperson said that Ms Qunta was entitled to her own legal interpretation and to question the legal advice of the Parliament but those questions could not be resolved here. Also when she said “we” who was she speaking on behalf of? The status of the Board was in dispute, but it seemed that in her mind she was the Deputy Chairperson of the Board and that the Board did meet quorum and that they were able to carry out their duties. But this seemed to be only in her mind. Many of the Committee members and also Board members would dispute that fact. The President was looking over the resignations and their resignation periods because that would have an effect on the ability to form a quorum, but in any case she had not attended a single meeting since April and now she claimed to be the Chairperson of the Board!

Mr Mbeki wanted to intervene on a point of order

The Chairperson did not want to recognise the point of order. He said that if Ms Qunta remained the Chairperson of the Board then why had the Board members chosen to elect an interim Chairperson? If they believed that there was a Deputy Chairperson in place, the logical decision would have been to call on the Deputy to resume the legal duties of the Chair when the Chair stepped down. Instead, in their wisdom, they had appointed an interim Chairperson, a position that was not even lawful. It was therefore questionable on whose behalf she was speaking. She was entitled to her interpretation and she could write more articles in the Cape Times about it but that would not help the situation. The Committee needed to take a decision based on the information they had received and needed to make an independent decision.

Mr Mbeki again tried to call on a point of urgency but the Chairperson said there was no point of urgency and did not recognise him.

Ms Serobe said that today’s meeting was much more exiting and she was happy that she had joined the Board in 2008 so that she had not missed it. When she joined the Board she hoped to contribute in the Audit and Finance Committees since she understood the state of the business. Four extraordinary events had happened to the Board last year. Firstly after hardly three months of being in office, the Board was challenged by a vote of no confidence in Parliament by the Committee that had appointed the Board. Secondly, after six months in office the Deloitte and Touche evaluation of the Board was carried out; but six months was not enough to evaluate the work of the Board. Thirdly there had been the Broadcasting Amendment Act and the Committee’s energy that had gone into passing it and the procedural problems in doing so, resulting in the Act only getting approved this year. Finally, in spite of all of this the Board had politely and courteously sat in the inquiry and taken the abuse which was all but physical.

At the personal level, none of that had made it necessary for her to resign from the Board. The only event that had triggered that thought had been the resignation of three of her colleagues at the same time. One of these colleagues was the Chairman of the Audit Committee; it was not conceivable to have the Chairman of the Audit Committee resign in the midst of an audit. Had this been a private entity there would have been huge concerns. In September when the audit was complete someone would have to take responsibility for the results no matter how bad they were. Then there were the PFMA compliance issues to deal with as a Board, further it operated under the Company Law, and the question was if they were able to perform their duties as a Board.

In assessing this there were two considerations. Firstly whether they were capable to carry out their duties, and she was more than satisfied that they could because amidst all the problems they had experienced during the year they had done a very good job. Secondly the question was who resigned, was called back and appointed. This was a consideration that she was not in control of. This question had implications on the quorum and if the vacant places were not filled by the Committee, the Board would not meet quorum in September. Mr Vundla had resigned in March and there were no indications that the Committee intended to fill the vacant positions. She therefore wanted this to be the formal notice of her exit. She did not want to take the responsibility for the meltdown of the Board but would continue to take responsibility for the Board to function in the most professional manner as long as it could. Once it did not meet quorum, it could no longer do so. She was there as one of the last three Board members left because it was her duty to stay for the five years she was appointed. The issues that triggered her resignations were out of her control.

To the extent that, by default, in September she could not perform her duties, and in the event there would be problems with the audit reports and so on, she wanted to make sure that the Committee had noted that she could not take ownership of that. The audit could go on through October and November, especially when considering the travel accounts and the issues of being a going concern. Attached to that was the fact that the annual reports were the ones that the Committee would have to take to the market to try to raise funds for a SABC that would have a shortfall of perhaps R5 billion in a five or three years time. It was therefore very important to say in her formal exit, which could be as of now if the Committee pleased, that she did not want to take responsibility for the issues that would arise from the Annual Report. It had been a wonderful 18 months, she would do it again, but in this situation there had been too many issues that were out of her control.

The Chairperson thanked Ms Serobe very much for the job she had done and handed the word to Ms Gilwald.

Ms Gilwald said that she wanted to clarify the status of the Board. Board members would not be able to address all the issues that had been raised, not even if they submitted written reports. It was therefore important to clarify certain issues had become conflated in the process over the past few days. No one had disputed the dysfunctionality of the Board; this issue had in fact been brought to the Minister by the remaining members of the Board. However the Board had considered it important to ensure that there was a transition and that decisions could be taken while it was decided what happened with the Board. Therefore members had looked at the technical issues and decided to come together, under Ms Qunta as a Chairperson to form a Board that met quorum. This arrangement was not meant to take the SABC forward but simply to ensure the running of the entity during the appointment of a new Board. The reestablishment of the quorum had been all about trying to deal with the issues that critically needed the Board’s approval.

Ms Mkhonza said she also wanted to respond to some of the important issues raised by Honourable Member De Lille. The Board had not had any political support from anyone and a few weeks ago she had said that until such time that there was a political decision to support the Board, the Board would not be able to function. The reason she would resign from the Board was that they had not had political support from day one. If they all resigned there would be nothing to dissolve, and the Committee would have to fill the vacancies instead of appointing a new Board. Why had no one considered filling the vacancies? The skills combination of the Board had been very good; it had been the right mix for the SABC. The members of the Board had agreed to serve the public broadcaster but they could not do that if they did not have political support. Instead the Committee had cooperated with executive management to remove the Board. The Chairperson had commented that this was a new Committee, but she had not seen a change in behaviour. The Committee continued to disrespect the Board, talking to them as if they were school children (or worse; school children were given more respect). If they had had some form of statement from the shareholder on the support of the Board, members would not have resigned in such a rapid pace. The lack of political support was thus her reason for resigning.

Mr Mbeki said that he had been too diplomatic previously. He was now going to be direct. Firstly it had to be said that from where he was sitting, the Chairperson had attacked Ms Qunta to a greater extent than she had attacked Adv De Lange and he felt that the Chairperson had gone overboard. If the Committee wanted a respectful process, the respect had to be mutual.

On the status of the Board, he had tried to send a signal when saying that the centre was not holding. He said that he thought he was speaking on behalf of all the Board members when he said that the confidence of the SABC Board had to be restored with the South African people and SABC’s revenue drivers which was the advertising community. To do this the Board needed to be given a new mandate. Perceptions were linked to what Ms Mkhonza was saying; only those who were respected by those in power would be respected in the wider community. If they did not have this support, they did not have the derived power and they did not have their mandate.

From the technical side the Board could be quorate, and they could bring up many such technical issues to the Committee. Traditionally Members of Parliament were highly respected, but the understanding of the issues at hand as shown by the members of the Committee was very shallow and in fact it was an embarrassment! He did not want to be pushed by the Committee into a corner where he would have to embarrass the Committee and he had held back, but his gun was loaded! The truth of the matter was that collectively as a Board they now lacked the chemistry that they needed to go forward. For whatever reason Ms Serobe had just confirmed that she had resigned, and so had Ms Mkhonza. Only Ms Gilwald had not said this, she withheld her resignation until she had been given the chance, in a fair procedure, to air out the skeletons in the SABC closet. He wanted to urge for an objection to this and request that this House had to make a strong suggestion to the National Assembly to dissolve the Board and appoint an interim Board. The process appointing the new Board had to be open and it had to be ensured that the new Board had full confidence of the House so that it would gain the confidence of the advertisers. Although he had said it before in more subtle terms he would say it again; please dissolve the Board. Please appoint an interim. Please begin the process to find a new Board immediately. Board members would continue to answer any questions as required, but they needed to be dissolved immediately.

The Chair thanked Mr Mbeki, a young man with a lot of wisdom, who had helped them to bring the matters to a closure. He thereby closed that specific section of the inquiry and thanked all the members of the Board who had appeared yesterday and today and specifically Ms Bulbulia and Ms Gilwald who had also attended on Thursday. The fact that they had attended had shown that they respected their duty to the institution and to the nation. He also thanked the management team; the Minister, who had made an important contribution; the Members of the Committee; and the opposition including Mr Holomisa who did not form part of the ordinary Committee. They now needed to move swiftly to decide how to continue. The Committee was adjourned for ten minutes.

When the Committee reconvened the Chair opened the floor for suggestions or proposals on how to proceed.

Mr L Mkhize (ANC) said that he wanted to propose that the Committee met tomorrow so that the SABC Board members could submit their written response.

Ms Kilian supported a reconvening tomorrow and suggested that members looked at suggestions of how to move forward. Before a final conclusion could be made they had to put everything to writing, including the date and periods of resignation so that they could decide whether to fill the vacancies or dissolve the Board. COPE was not comfortable with dissolving the Board due to the question marks around the due process of the inquiry and would only consider a dissolution as a last measure.  They had to come back with suggestions on how to ensure continuity of the practical work of the Board. She was happy to make a proposal on how to move on right now but she would prefer if that were done tomorrow.

Mr Kholwane said that before they discussed a way forward they needed to ensure that the written submissions were considered. He suggested that they gave the Board members until the end of business tomorrow to make their submissions and that the Committee reconvened on Friday 25 June. They could then conclude on how to deal with the issues and work out their recommendation to the National Assembly so that a decision could be taken there within the next week.

Adv De Lange said that he strongly supported Mr Kholwane’s suggestion. They could not give the Board members two or three weeks to finish their submissions; however they needed to give them at least some time. Two days would be enough if they had something that urgently needed to be brought to the Committee’s attention. Board members needed to be informed of the deadline. Further, the Committee needed to get the resignation letters and all the issues around that, since that was a debate that could arise on Friday. A resolution needed to be prepared before Friday so that all legal issues were considered then.

Mr Zondi said that he agreed generally with Mr Kholwane’s suggestion but he was not sure that it was fair to make the deadline of the written submission the next day. It was clear that they could not wait for two weeks but at least they should grant two full days since it had been indicated that Board members needed to engage with management to retrieve the necessary information and this would take time. He did not see the Committee concluding the process this week but definitely by next week. They had not really been prepared to listen to the Board members and they could later be challenged to that effect.

The Chairperson recognised Mr Zondi’s point, but at the resolution of the inquiry it had been said on behalf of all the Board members that they wanted to be dissolved. In light of this did the Committee really believe that they would receive many documents from the Board members? There had been no dissenting voices from the suggestion that they be resolved. In terms of the Parliamentary programme the Committee only had two more weeks before the recess. After the decision had been taken in the Committee on the dissolution, their recommendation had to go through National Assembly and the President. Further, they needed to appoint an interim before 7 July otherwise they would have a complete crisis on their hands. He did not see what more could be presented when the Board had already urged the Committee to dissolve them. He wanted them to resolve the issues by Friday morning.

Ms De Lille said that tomorrow the parties had caucuses, which needed to be consulted on this matter, and also the President would be responding to his budget debate, so tomorrow was out. She wanted to support that they met on Friday. When they met they should, after having discussed with their caucuses, decide if they should dissolve the Board or if they should complete the inquiry in terms of the Act.  

Ms Kilian agreed with Ms De Lille.

Mr Van Den Berg said that there were certain people on the Board who had things they could give to the SABC and who had very specific skills that were useful for the SABC. Perhaps the Committee should ask one of the current members to serve on the interim Board to ensure that there was someone with background knowledge who could steer the SABC through the stormy weather. Finally, he had some important constituency work on Friday and wanted to confirm what time they should meet.

The Chairperson said that they had received confirmation from the Chair of Committees confirming a meeting slot for the Committee tomorrow between three and six. Could they get some flexibility from the ANC in this matter? Caucuses needed to be confirmed, but could the Committee meet at 3.30 pm tomorrow? Or otherwise could Van Den Berg make himself available on Friday between 9-11am?

Mr Van Den Berg said that that would be possible.

The Chairperson asked if they all agreed to this and asked if there were any other suggestions.

Ms M Magazi (ANC) said that Mr Mbeki had objected to Ms Gilwald’s proposal to submit her own report. How was the Committee going to deal with this situation? There had been no response to Mbeki’s proposal, but they could not be sure that all Board members had agreed.

The Chairperson said that he would send a letter to all members of the Board about the submission deadline.

Mr Kholwane said that in terms of his understanding some members did still advance the point that a broader investigation or a forensic audit was needed. This was still possible once the inquiry of the Board was finished.

Adv De Lange suggested to mandate the Chair to meet with the parties and check what kind of processes they could follow in terms of dissolving the Board and appointing an interim.

Mr Zondi agreed with that and said that if Committee members could bring up the appointing of an interim Board with caucuses this week it would save the process a week.

Mr Van Den Berg said that it had been the Board members’ clear indication that they wanted to be dissolved. If they did not want to be part of the Board it was not possible to keep them on.

Ms Morutoa said that Mr Van Den Berg had partly covered her. It had been clear that Ms Serobe had no intentions to deal with the Board in the future. Could they just agree to meet on Friday?

The Chair asked if they could agree to the meeting between 9 and 11am on Friday and that members began informally caucusing around possible suggestions for the five members of an interim Board.

Ms Kilian said that they had to discuss the turnaround strategy. The Minister and the DDG had made some suggestions; at what stage would the Committee deal with that because it was clear that replacing the Board would not be enough.

The Chairperson said that it was an important question but it was not a debate to be opened now.

The members agreed with the Chairpersons suggestion and the meeting was adjourned.