SABC Board Chairperson alleged misrepresentation of qualifications to National Assembly: Inquiry

Meeting report

Chairperson’s Opening Comments
The Chairperson indicated the Committee would be dealing with just one item which had been on the agenda for quite a long time. This meeting would take the form of an inquiry and it was hoped today’s meeting would bring finality to the matter because it was an obstacle for the Committee to be dealing with it for so long. She outlined the long history behind the processing of the matter and the alleged misconduct in terms of section 15 of the Broadcasting Act 4 of 1999. The Act referred to the removal of office and resignation of a board member. In this particular case, the relevant section of the Act was 15A(1)(a)(i) which said, “the National Assembly may, after due inquiry and by the adoption of a resolution, recommend the removal of a member from office on account of...misconduct” not forgetting that the misconduct was 'alleged' at this time.

She provided a summary of the events which led the Committee to this point. It started with allegations made by the City Press newspaper. Thereafter, she was given a letter by Mr Gavin Davis, a DA Member of the Committee, on the same allegation with a request for the Committee to look into this. She took it on herself to work with Parliament’s legal services, looking at the facts and documents which arose from the Fourth Parliament. The process was conducted thoroughly to prevent any faltering. She acknowledged the Committee was made up of various parties and she did not encounter a pleasant time, having been attacked and accused of delaying the process or closing meetings from the media. She recognised that Parliament was not homogenous and she accepted the nature of the opposition. In the midst of all this, in the main, two letters were written by the person in question, Ms Zandile Ellen Tshabalala, requesting postponement in one case and problems with the University of South Africa (UNISA) messing up student records. The Chairperson was then obliged to take the matter to the Committee as the qualifications still were not produced. The Committee decided suspension should be considered while the inquiry was in process but a final decision on this was deferred. At the next meeting of the Committee, with sufficient consultation and advice from Parliament’s legal section, it was recommended Ms Tshabalala be suspended. It should be noted the Committee could make a recommendation in this regard only to the President. A decision was then taken to hold the inquiry on 25 September at a strategic planning session of the Committee in Joburg held on 16 September 2014.  This was later postponed to 14 October to enable Ms Tshabalala time to prepare her defence so as to give her a fair hearing and to clarify any matter with the Committee. A charge sheet was issued to Ms Tshabalala on 23 September. The inquiry was then interdicted by the court only for the case to later be thrown out. Although the Committee wanted the inquiry to take place earlier than today, Parliament was hectic at the time. It was important to highlight the long path it took for the Committee to reach this day. 

The Charges
Adv Ntuthuzelo Vanara, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, presented the two charges to the Committee against Ms Tshabalala. The amended charge sheet was given to her on Tuesday, 14 October. The charges and allegations were as follows:
It is alleged that, as a member of the South African Broadcasting Commission (SABC) board, you are guilty of misconduct constituted in terms of section 15A(1)(a)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 4 of 1999. Whilst a member of the SABC board and during the nominations for the current SABC board at the National Assembly and/or the Portfolio Committee on Communications, you committed misconduct by misrepresenting or lying about your academic qualifications in your Curriculum Vitae submitted to the National Assembly and/or the Portfolio Committee on Communications by representing that you possessed a Bachelor of Commerce (BCom) Degree and a postgraduate diploma in labour relations from the University of South Africa when you knew, or ought reasonably to have known, you did not possess the claimed academic qualifications. It is alleged that you are guilty of conduct constituting an offence in terms of section 9 of the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oath Act 16 of 1963 in that in an affidavit, affirmation or solemn declaration made on 23 July 2014 and before a person competent to administer an oath or affirmation or take a declaration, you made a false statement knowing it to be false by claiming you could not find copies of your academic qualification as you lost them in a house burglary around 2000 and 2002.

Pleading
The Chairperson indicated that this was where Ms Tshabalala would plead guilty or not guilty.

Mr Michael Tillney, Ms Tshabalala’s lawyer, thought it was not appropriate for pleading at this stage.

The Chairperson noted Ms Tshabalala had been invited to the meeting. The Chairperson was not informed as to the reasons she was not present. The process was such that there was pleading of either guilty or not and it was acceptable according to the charge sheet that this be done by a representative. This would then be followed by the witnesses. She asked Adv Vanara on advice on how to move forward.

Adv Vanara said the notice of the hearing was clear that the proceedings may proceed in Ms Tshabalala’s absence. Although she was not present after duly being notified, her legal representative was present and Adv Vanara suggested the Committee hear from the representative, the reasons for Ms Tshabalala’s absence.

The Chairperson asked Mr Tillney to proceed.

Mr Tillney read from an affidavit prepared by Ms Tshabalala. It stated that she thought it was clear she would not receive a fair hearing. She felt the Committee did not accommodate her availability or that of her legal representatives when deciding on dates for the inquiry. She then duly made a formal request for the postponement of the inquiry. The Committee had unilaterally decided on 3 December even after she advised the availability of her counsel on 10, 11 or 12 December. This would have allowed her counsel to sufficiently prepare for the case, secure availability and that of expert witnesses in her defence. She had been made to apply for various postponements to the inquiry because of the Committee’s unfair and uncompromising attitude. The Committee also did not provide her attorney information on the witnesses it had planned to lead against her. It was clear the judgment of Judge Baartman was ignored by the Committee as seen in the Committee’s unilateral decision to conduct the inquiry without allowing her to secure the availability of her counsel. The emphasis was on the evidence leader leading these charges to prove her guiltiness. The evidence to be presented by Mr Van Wyk for UNISA was already conveniently leaked to the media. The evidence was therefore hearsay. Mr Davis has also conducted his own investigation through procuring the services of a private company. The investigation allegedly showed she had no degree. She wanted to receive further particulars regarding this private company and Mr Davis' recusal from the Committee. This was not a simple matter of producing certificates – she had already gone on oath to say it was taken during a house break-in which was reported to the SA Police Service (SAPS). As UNISA was a long-distance learning institute it was difficult to get witnesses to prove she studied with them. There was no urgency and she could not understand how postponement could not be agreed upon. The fact that the matter had a long history was irrelevant and it was clear from the conduct of some of the Members of the Committee, the Committee had a clear bias toward her. It was clear the Committee would not comply with the principles of natural justice. A notice of application for leave to appeal against the court decision had been filed – the outcome should then be to postpone the hearing into the inquiry pending the outcome of the appeal. The matter had not been finalised until the court appeal process was exhausted. It was clear the Committee wanted to prosecute her instead of conducting an investigative inquiry. She found it ironic that certain Members of the Committee cried foul when certain Members of the EFF were suspended from Parliament. The Members complained of procedural unfairness when the Nkandla Report was passed by the ruling party’s majority saying the party played judge, jury and prosecutor. This was precisely what the Committee was doing. This was an important and unprecedented matter which had legal and constitutional consequences. She could not participate in a hearing where the outcome had been preordained and her rights in this regard were reserved.

The original of the affidavit was handed to the Chairperson.

The Chairperson said that she did not hear the reasons why Ms Tshabalala was not present.

Mr Tillney said it was clear from the affidavit that there were allegations of procedural unfairness in the convening of today’s meeting.

The Chairperson clarified Parliament had a programme and this could not be based on the diaries or availability of legal representatives or any other institutions. This was the date available for the Committee to meet, even coming out of recess for this commitment. If dates for meetings were dictated by other people, Parliament would not be operational. Nobody argued when a court date was set. Parliament was also an independent institution with a particular mandate to fulfil and dates of meetings could not be chosen by the availability of legal representatives of other people. She believed the Committee had bent over backwards enough to accommodate Ms Tshabalala. It was completely unfair to subject the Committee to be dependent on the availability of legal representatives. She emphasised the history of the matter showed the Committee had exercised sufficient patience. To say there was no urgency in the matter was throwing eggs on the Committee’s face. The fact that the Committee had been working on this one matter for so long was ridiculing. She was disappointed to hear this and felt it was so wrong and unfair to hear there was no urgency in the matter. The work of the Committee needed to be defended – everything that came before the Committee was urgent.

Adv Vanara thought that given the history of the matter starting in July and the patience exhibited by the Committee towards Ms Tshabalala in affording her enough time to prepare her legal team as to the charges. This was seen in the hearing being moved from 25 September to 14 October. This was more than enough time for Ms Tshabalala to consult her legal team but she waited until the eve of 14 October to consult her senior counsel, despite being given in excess of two weeks to prepare for the hearing. On 14 October, the Committee heard her legal team was not available and a subsequent postponement to 24 October was allowed. Strangely, at the same time the legal team had enough time to prepare and consult for the hearing, an urgent court application was prepared in the Western Cape High Court to stop proceedings on what the Committee considered a non-issue. Needless to say, the court application was dismissed by the Honourable Court and there was now Ms Tshabalala’s notice of appeal.

Adv Vanara summarised the correct legal position in respect of application to appeal were there had been an interdict by highlighting a number of judgements: “the refusal of a final order where interim interdictory was granted but final relief refused, did not revive the interim order unless the parties agreed to the specific existence of the interim order pending appeal”. He respectfully thought the advised legal position of Ms Tshabalala was not correct and there was nothing stopping the Committee from continuing its business for the day. Ms Tshabalala was furnished with all documents requested in possession of the evidence leader. As the evidence leader, he understood it was his task to lead the evidence against Ms Tshabalala and he was prepared to do that today. He asked the Committee to take into account that this was a matter of public importance which must be dealt with expeditiously. The SABC was a national asset and did not belong to any individual. It was regrettable the matter was viewed by Ms Tshabalala as not being urgent. It was up to the Committee to decide what to do moving forward, given Ms Tshabalala’s absence. It was clear in the notice of meeting and correspondence between the Committee and legal team that failure to attend the meeting would mean the Committee could continue in her absence.

Mr M Kalako (ANC) fully agreed with the legal advice. It set the Committee on the right footing to continue the process that this was a matter of public importance. It should be re-emphasised that the SABC was a public broadcaster and was in the public interest, with everyone looking at this issue. He agreed the Committee should proceed today. He asked for advice on Ms Tshabalala calling for the recusal of one Member of the Committee, Mr Davis, to move without prejudicing the proceedings.

Adv Vanara indicated the affidavit was only received this morning and he was still trying to determine the basis of the demand. He needed time to look at the matter.

The Chairperson sad the matter did go through a court process and the judgement did not allow for the omitting or non-participation of Committee Members. The evidence would guide the Committee.

Mr Tillney was excused.

Adv Vanara, reading the affidavit, found that Ms Tshabalala was of the opinion she could demand the recusal of Mr Davis but he did not get the sense she was demanding this. Assuming she did demand the recusal of Mr Davis, he did not think the reasons put forward were a basis for recusal. He was advised that Ms Tshabalala took a conscious decision not to be present today.

Adv Vanara stated, in line with the notice of hearing given the developments of the morning, a plea of not guilty would be entered into for record purposes on behalf of Ms Tshabalala for both charges one and two.

Witness One
The Chairperson thanked the witness for his patience with the constant travelling and change of dates. She asked if the witness would swear that the contents of his submission and what he was about to testify on was true and correct. If this was so, he was to raise his right hand and agree to this.

Adv Vanara asked the witness to tell the Committee who he was and where he worked.

The witness said he was Mr Jan Coetzee Van Wyk, the Executive Director of Legal Services at UNISA. UNISA was a statutory juristic person participating in legal and commercial matters like any other legal entity. He took overarching responsibility for all legal work of UNISA. He was also the delegated functionary pertaining to applications in relation to the Administrative Justice Act and the Promotion of Access to Information Act. He was with UNISA for 17 years.

Adv Vanara asked if it was correct he was the information officer at UNISA.

Mr Van Wyk said this was correct.

VW said this was correct. He attended to the applications for access to information.

Adv Vanara asked if Mr Van Wyk was aware he was requested to come and share information around one of UNISA’s former students, Ms Zandile Ellen Tshabalala,

Mr Van Wyk said he was aware of the matter. If he recalled correctly, it was around May 2014 that UNISA received an application from Media24, he could not remember the journalists name, inquiring about the qualifications of Ms Tshabalala. UNISA could not dish out private information so the request was initially declined. This was followed by an appeal process. After studying the relevant sections of the Act, it was decided it was indeed information which would have to be disclosed. Procedure was followed by giving Ms Tshabalala notice at the SABC notifying her of the relevant request for information and she had 21 days to respond. UNISA got no response but there was confirmation the notice was indeed delivered to Ms Tshabalala. During this period, a response from lawyers had gone to his junk email folder asking for access to the academic records of Ms Tshabalala. He only picked this emailed up later and he did not make the link between the two requests. Later, he linked the two requests which had sought the same information. On 27 July he attached all the necessary UNISA academic records and sent it via email. He also became aware of he claim Ms Tshabalala did some studies at UNIS’s Business School in Midrand and he made that information available as well to the same attorneys. He did not hear from attorneys again, he then heard about the matter in the media and in early October he was contacted by the Secretary of the Committee to ascertain his availability to testify before the Committee.

Adv Vanara asked, specifically, what Media24 wanted to know.

Mr Van Wyk said he did not have that information but if he remembered correctly it was a simple straightforward request to confirm if she was a student at UNISA and what awards or qualifications were conferred to her

Adv Vanara asked what the ultimate response back to Media24 was.

Mr Van Wyk said he responded very briefly saying simply no qualification was awarded to the said individual. UNISA did not necessarily want to make private information available to all and sundry.

Adv Vanara asked if this included the BCom degree and diploma in labour relations.

Mr Van Wyk said no specific qualification was referred to by name. He just said no qualification was ever conferred or awarded to Ms Tshabalala or Ms Magubane as she was known at one stage. Ms Tshabalala started to study at UNISA in 1988 and at one stage she apparently decided to stop studying and then registered again in 1996.

Adv Vanara stopped the witness because he wanted to proceed in a structured way for Members to follow the evidence. He made Members aware of the document pack to follow the evidence being presented. He asked Mr Van Wyk to take the Committee down memory lane in respect of this one-time UNISA student and when the institution made contact with her for the first time.

Mr Van Wyk asked the Committee to look at annexure A1 which represented the UNISA registration page which displayed her ID number, student number allocated and stated she was a new student. The rest of the page displayed simple personal information. It was noted she applied for a senior, or exemption, certificate which indicated she applied for conditional matriculation exemption on the grounds of being 23 years or older. The application was received by the matriculation board, which was a government department, and the exemption was granted.

Adv Vanara asked in which year this all happened.

Mr Van Wyk indicated it was in 1988 – first year of registration at UNISA.

Adv Vanara asked for the month.

Mr Van Wyk said the registration took place on 8 January 1988.

Adv Vanara asked for which degree or course Ms Tshabalala was registered for.

Mr Van Wyk indicated it was for a Bachelor of Commerce degree with three courses registered for, including, business economics, industrial psychology and economics.

Adv Vanara said it was highlighted Ms Tshabalala did not have university endorsement in her matric certificate at the time – was this correct?

Mr Van Wyk said this was correct and explained why specific exemption was requested.

Adv Vanara recapped the registration process thus far. Annexure B was a letter dated 8 January 1988. He asked Mr Van Wyk to read the letter for the record.

Mr Van Wyk read it was a letter of confirmation by UNISA noting Ms Tshabalala that she was registered for a BCom degree with three courses. The submission of certain documents was also required along with conditional exemption.

Adv Vanara asked if the conditional exemption was applied for and if so what the outcome was.

Mr Van Wyk said the application was made and the matriculation board granted the exemption. It was important to note the certificate shall be considered to have lapsed if the applicant did not satisfy the requirements set forth above or before 31 March 1993. This was important to note because in the second registration, this played a role in explaining why the registration was then cancelled.

Adv Vanara asked what process took place after the certificate was granted.



Mr Van Wyk said Ms Tshabalala then became an officially first year registered student for a B Com degree at UNISA.

Adv Vanara asked if the registration was formally confirmed.

Mr Van Wyk replied that he did not have an official confirmation letter apart from the letter under Annexure B which was the first confirmation of official registration. According to UNISA records, she was fully admitted and registered at the institution.

Adv Vanara asked Mr Van Wyk to read Annexure E, a letter dated 3 March 1988.

Mr Van Wyk said the letter served Ms Tshabalala was only to use the name she was registered under for all correspondence with UNISA, which was Magubane, her maiden surname.

Adv Vanara asked what happened with the three courses Ms Tshabalala was enrolled for.

Mr Van Wyk explained she received study materials and anything else she needed to conduct her studies. She then wrote to say she wished to cancel the business economic course – this was contained in Annexure F. Annexure G noted the internal process of the student advisor cancelling the business economics course as requested and this was followed by a letter, Annexure H, which UNISA wrote to Ms Tshabalala outlining her requested cancelled course and that her account had been credited accordingly. This letter was dated 20 May 1988.

Adv Vanara asked what happened with the two remaining courses Ms Tshabalala was registered for.

Mr Van Wyk said Ms Tshabalala proceeded with her studies but UNISA’s records showed she only wrote one of the two remaining subjects. Annexure I was a letter written by UNISA to Ms Tshabalala outlining the transfer of her industrial psychology course. This happened when a student did not pass the examination and a supplementary examination opportunity was provided or when the initial examination was simply not written – the latter was the case with Ms Tshabalala.

Adv Vanara asked Ms Van Wyk to talk the Committee through Ms Tshabalala’s academic record contained in Annexure N i.e. the outcome of the three courses registered for in 1988.

Mr Van Wyk highlighted one course was cancelled (business economics), in the economics course she did not obtain the relevant year mark to be able to write the examination and she unfortunately failed the industrial psychology course.

Adv Vanara moved on asking if there were subsequent years after 1988 in which Ms Tshabalala was registered.

Mr Van Wyk answered that, according to UNISA records, Ms Tshabalala disappeared from the radar – she did not continue her studies the next year and did not register again. The proverbial tracks were picked up again in 1996 when she registered at UNISA for a second time, again for a BCom degree. This was contained in Annexure G and further.

Adv Vanara asked the witness to take Members through the registration form for 1996.

Mr Van Wyk indicated this was contained in Annexure J noting the ID number differed from the one found in the registration forms of 1988 because in 1996, she registered as Tshabalala and not Magubane. In this 1996 registration, Ms Tshabalala indicated she had completed a diploma at the UNISA School of Business Leadership (SBL) in 1995. In 1996 she was allocated the same student number. She registered for industrial psychology (the course failed in 1988), introduction to economics management and environment and business management. These were all first-year courses.

Adv Vanara asked in what year this happened.

Mr Van Wyk replied that it was on 7 February 1996. One course was picked up from 1988 while two new courses were being registered for.

Adv Vanara, assuming in 1993, UNISA awarded a certificate or BCom degree to the same student, would the courses passed to obtain this degree, appear on the 1996 registration form?

Mr Van Wyk responded that the system would have immediately picked the previous history up so yes, the registration form would have picked this up. It was possible to do as many BCom degrees as one wanted to but this would be a futile exercise as far as he was concerned.

Adv Vanara asked if Ms Tshabalala had obtained a degree it would appear on the records.

Mr Van Wyk said it would.

Adv Vanara asked what happened after registration in 1996.

Mr Van Wyk noted the matric exemption awarded in 1988 was only valid until 31 March 1993 (as highlighted in Annexure C). The exemption required certain courses to be passed and if these subjects were not passed, the exemption would come to an end in 1993. The 1996 registration showed Ms Tshabalala did not pass any subjects required for a matric exemption so the exemption lapsed. She would need to re-apply which the 1996 registration form made clear.

Adv Vanara moved to Annexure K which was a letter written by UNISA addressed to Ms Tshabalala – he asked Mr Van Wyk to read this letter to the Committee.

Mr Van Wyk highlighted the Annexure, or letter, stated the urgent appeal for Ms Tshabalala to submit the exemption before 11 May 1996. This included R60 to renew the conditional exemption.

Adv Vanara moved to Annexure L which was a letter from UNISA addressed to Ms Tshabalala dated 6 May 1996- he asked Mr Van Wyk to read the letter to the Committee.

Mr Van Wyk said the letter was a cancellation of the 1996 registration because the requested outstanding documents were not submitted before 30 April 1996 i.e. the matriculation exemption. Any future applications could only be considered if the outstanding documents were attached.

Adv Vanara indicated Annexure M was another letter from August 1996 from the university to Ms Tshabalala- he asked Mr Van Wyk to read the letter to the Committee.

Mr Van Wyk highlighted the letter contained reimbursement of the exemption fee paid by the student, Ms Tshabalala.

Adv Vanara indicated this letter signalled the end of any relations between UNISA and Ms Tshabalala – was this correct?

Mr Van Wyk said as far as the BCom studies this was correct.

Adv Vanara asked if it was correct that for Ms Tshabalala to successfully be registered in 1996 she would have had to submit the conditional exemption.

Mr Van Wyk replied that this was correct.

Adv Vanara questioned if the conditional exemption granted in 1988 was only valid until 1993.

Mr Van Wyk highlighted the important point that the exemption was dependent on all courses needed for the degree being passed. If Ms Tshabalala passed all the courses from 1988, the exemption would not have been required in 1996. Because she did not pass all the courses, the exemption lapsed in 1993 and was required again in 1996. Because she did not re-apply for an extension of the exemption required for registration in 1996, UNISA unilaterally cancelled her 1996 registration. In effect, no studies took place by Ms Tshabalala in 1996 at UNISA.

Adv Vanara added this was captured in Annexure N- the academic records of Ms Tshabalala at UNISA.

Mr Van Wyk said this was correct.

Adv Vanara asked if Mr Van Wyk received any further registration forms in respect of a BCom degree for the same individual subsequent to 1996.

Mr Van Wyk answered that the records showed this was not the case.

Adv Vanara asked Mr Van Wyk to enlighten the Committee about what the UNISA records show in respect of the diploma in labour relations.

Mr Van Wyk explained Ms Tshabalala applied to study in 1995 at the SBL which was the development programme in labour relations which was a diploma course. The records showed she was employed by Portnet at this stage and one of the requirements for the course was to be operating in the relevant field of the studies. Portnet wrote to UNISA to say Ms Tshabalala was working for the company as a Human Resources Officer and they would like to enrol her in the programme of labour relations offered by UNISA. This then was an initiative by Portnet to have Ms Tshabalala studying toward this diploma.

Adv Vanara asked if Mr Tshabalala registered for the diploma.

Mr Van Wyk indicated positively.

Adv Vanara wanted to know how many courses the student would have to pass to be awarded the diploma.

Mr Van Wyk said the diploma required six courses or modules. It was structured in such a manner that it was a year course where all the modules needed to be passed. Ms Tshabalala was registered for all six modules required. She was provided with the relevant study material.

Adv Vanara asked Mr Van Wyk to list the courses the student was registered for and the outcome of these courses as stated in a letter dated 22 November 1995.

Mr Van Wyk did not have the course names only the course codes. For one she received 52% (passed), the second course examination was not written at all, the third course she received 36% (failed), she did not write the examination for the fourth course, for the fifth course she received 42% (failed) and for the sixth course she received 51% (passed). In summary, the student did not write two courses, failed two courses and passed two courses. The letter said the student may write special examinations in the two courses not written. The student unfortunately could not write special examinations in the two courses failed but the courses may be repeated. Ms Tshabalala did write the two courses she did not write in 1995 but she failed both of them. For one of these second opportunity examinations she received 13% and for the other she received 35%.

Adv Vanara asked how many modules Ms Tshabalala needed to successfully complete to be awarded the diploma.

Mr Van Wyk explained, in order to receive the diploma as a qualification, all courses needed to be passed. This was why the student was allowed to write the examinations for the two modules she did not write and repeat the two failed modules. The university wrote to the student to say that because she had not cumulatively unsuccessful in four or more courses, she may not continue on with the diploma. Basically this meant Ms Tshabalala did so poorly that she was not allowed to be readmitted.

Adv Vanara asked if it would be correct to say Ms Tshabalala was not awarded this specific diploma by UNISA.

Mr Van Wyk said Ms Tshabalala was not awarded this qualification/diploma by UNISA.

Adv Vanara asked if it was also correct Ms Tshabalala’s claims UNISA awarded her the qualification in 1996 was incorrect.

Mr Van Wyk repeated, according to UNISA records, no qualification whatsoever was awarded to Ms Tshabalala.

Adv Vanara understood an inquiry was made by Mercedes Benz regarding Ms Tshabalala’s qualifications as contained in Annexure V. he asked Mr Van Wyk to speak to this inquiry.

Mr Van Wyk explained in 2011, it appeared Ms Tshabalala applied for a position at Mercedes Benz and MIE was requested to verify her qualifications. The request was written to UNISA to confirm the claim of a qualification of a diploma in labour relations and a BCom degree. UNISA then simply confirmed the two qualifications were not awarded to Ms Tshabalala by UNISA.

Adv Vanara asked Mr Van Wyk to read the claimed years in which the qualifications were awarded.

Mr Van Wyk said it was claimed the diploma was awarded in 1996 and the BCom was awarded in 1993. He noted he was simply here to confirm the records of UNISA.

Adv Vanara turned to UNISA’s response to the media24 inquiry. He asked Mr Van Wyk to explain to the Committee what the response of UNISA was.

Mr Van Wyk said he did not have the letter in front of him but if he remembered correctly, he confirmed no qualification was awarded to the mentioned individual by this university. The response did not go into detail. Today was the only day he had gone to this extent to divulge information and detail of the academic records of Ms Tshabalala at UNISA.

Adv Vanara asked if this was in reference to both the BCom degree and diploma in labour relations.

Mr Van Wyk conveyed response said no qualification whatsoever was ever conferred to awarded to this person as far as UNISA’s records went.

Adv Vanara did not have any further questions for Mr Van Wyk.

The Chairperson said there were only two witnesses. She called for the second witness, Mr Ngoma.

Witness Two
She asked if the witness swore the contents of his submission and what he was about to testify on was true and correct. If this was so, he was to raise his right hand and say “so help me God”.

Mr Vanara asked the witness to confirm that during the Fourth Parliament, i.e. the Parliament before the current one, what his position was.

Mr Thembinkosi Ngoma, Portfolio Committee on Communications Secretary, confirmed he was the Secretary to the Portfolio Committee on Communications.

Adv Vanara asked if it was correct the Committee advertised for members of the SAB Board.

Mr Ngoma indicated this was correct and took place around June 2013.

Adv Vanara asked Mr Ngoma to take the Committee through what happened toward the closing date and when he started receiving nomination forms. He asked the witness to zoom to one candidate, Ms Tshabalala.

Mr Ngoma said the closing date for persons to serve on the SABC Board was Friday 19 July 2013 at 16h00. Tradition was to look at the complete nominations after the closing date and in the event where the nomination was not complete, to contact the relevant person and request for additional documents. This was the case with Ms Tshabalala when her qualifications were not attached.

Adv Vanara asked what happened when Mr Ngoma discovered Ms Tshabalala did not attach the qualifications. He asked Mr Ngoma how he became aware Ms Tshabalala had qualifications but the copies thereof were not attached to the CV.
Mr Ngoma looked through the CV to see if qualifications were listed as no qualifications were attached and having realised there were a number of qualifications listed on the CV, he called Ms Tshabalala to send through the copies of the certified qualifications as listed in her CV. About a day or two later he received an email from Ms Tshabalala which contained an affidavit along with one certificate.

Adv Vanara showed Mr Ngoma the CV of Ms Tshabalala to confirm that it was the document he received with the nomination form. Members had a copy in the evidence pack as well.
 
Mr Ngoma confirmed this was the CV he received.

Adv Vanara asked the witness to tell the Committee which qualifications were claimed and for which of the qualifications there were no certified copies thereof.

Mr Ngoma said no certified copies of all the qualifications were received which were claimed on the CV.

Adv Vanara asked the witness to read the “educational experience” listed on page three of Ms Tshabalala’s CV.

Mr Ngoma listed corporate governance and risk management certificate from Milpark Business School, Masters Degree in Engineering Business Management from Warwick University – degree not completed, Diploma in Labour Relations (postgraduate) from UNISA, Bachelor of Commerce Degree from UNISA and an international diploma of banking from the Institute of Banking in SA.

Adv Vanara asked what Mr Ngoma did seeing that the certified qualifications were not attached.

Mr Ngoma said he then phoned Ms Tshabalala and requested she sent the certified copies of the qualifications.

Adv Vanara asked what Ms Tshabalala’s response was.

Mr Ngoma indicated she said would send the qualifications. A day or two later he received an affidavit with one certificate.

Adv Vanara asked Mr Ngoma to take the Committee through the received affidavit.

Mr Ngoma highlighted the affidavit said around 2001-2002 her house was broken into and goods were stolen. The matter was reported to the police in Johannesburg. Amongst other items stolen was her bag which contained all her academic records, certificates and private documents. As a result, she could not submit the required credentials exempt for one copy of a certificate she acquired in 2012.

Adv Vanara asked the witness to tell the Committee who signed the document.

Mr Ngoma said it was E Tshabalala and the Commissioner of Oath.

Adv Vanara asked what was attached to the affidavit.

Mr Ngoma said it was a certificate from Milpark Business School.

Adv Vanara asked in whose name the certificate was awarded.

Mr Ngoma replied it was submitted in Ms Tshabalala’s name.

Adv Vanara asked what course the certificate was awarded in.

Mr Ngoma answered it was a short course in corporate governance and risk management issued on 11 April 2013.

Adv Vanara asked if this was the certificate claimed in Ms Tshabalala’s CV.

Mr Ngoma said this was correct.

Adv Vanara asked who this certificate was received.

Mr Ngoma replied that it was received via fax/email. He used a fax to email.

Adv Vanara asked what happened thereafter.

Mr Ngoma took the affidavit and certificate and attached it to Ms Tshabalala’s application and submitted all the documents to the Committee. This all formed part of documents considered by the Committee.

Adv Vanara asked if it was correct Ms Tshabalala was recommended by the Committee and would have formed part of a Report submitted to the National Assembly.

Mr Ngoma said this was correct.

Adv Vanara did not have any further questions from the witness.

Committee Deliberations
Mr M Kalako (ANC) felt the Committee had handled the matter correctly. He felt the public should know Ms Tshabalala was very uncooperative right from the beginning. She never wanted to cooperate with the Committee. It was important for the people of SA to know one did not have to misrepresent oneself on the issue of qualifications and it was something for South Africans to desist from. He appreciated the swift action of the Acting CEO of SA Airways who immediately was truthful about his lack of degree when it was raised recently in the media. Parliament needed to be more emphatic with members of boards of government entities or parastatals because an example needed to be set.

Mr G Davis (DA) thought the issue from the beginning was never about the lack of qualifications but the fact that Ms Tshabalala’s qualifications had been misrepresented. This went to the heart of honesty and integrity and showed someone who lied about qualifications should not be the head of the public broadcaster – this was what the issue was all about. The DA supported the finding of the Committee that Ms Tshabalala was guilty of misconduct. Accordingly, the party moved Ms Tshabalala should be removed from her position which meant the House should table a resolution in this respect for it to go to the President. He was concerned that Parliament was not sitting at the moment so the resolution could only be tabled in February next year. He then questioned what happened to Ms Tshabalala between now and February next year. He urged the Committee to suspend Ms Tshabalala immediately based on the findings of the Committee and that such a memorandum be passed to the Speaker’s Officer to be passed to the President as it was his discretion as to when Ms Tshabalala got suspended. This was an urgent matter as Ms Tshabalala could not be in the position any longer.

Mr R Tseli (ANC) found it very clear why Ms Tshabalala did not turn up today because she knew there was no way she could produce those qualifications. He added the matter was first discovered in July and she could still not produce those qualifications. Since the affidavit made in 2011, no efforts were made to make the alleged qualifications available to Parliament. Everything was proved by Ms Tshabalala going a very costly legal route to fight Parliament instead of simply making copies of the qualifications available at the mere cost of 50c. This was an embarrassment to Parliament and the SABC. He was sure this was a lesson to all other people thinking of going the route taken by Ms Tshabalala. It was very clear from the UNISA witness that there was no way she could produce those claimed qualifications. Parliament remained committed to clean governance and he agreed that Ms Tshabalala should be dismissed.

Mr M Kekana (ANC) supported what the other Members had said and the findings as presented. He thought Ms Tshabalala should be suspended because she was a bad example and all eyes were on Parliament. She should in fact be criminally charged because it was an offence to lie under oath and to Parliament. Perhaps the Committee should take this further step to fight corruption at all cost and ensure nobody emulated what Ms Tshabalala had done. He was happy with what transpired today.

Mr W Madisha (COPE) thought it needed to be understood by all that the SABC belonged to the people of SA who made taxes daily. Anyone who did what Ms Tshabalala did was wrong and it could not be allowed to happen again. He thought the parliamentary legal adviser had done excellent work and he agreed action needed to be taken. This action needed to be taken immediately and Ms Tshabalala needed to be moved out of that office permanently. Because of the evidence presented to the Committee today, Ms Tshabalala needed to move away from the institution which belonged to South Africans. She had been invited many times before the Committee – people wanted the truth and someone who lied like that had to go, not tomorrow, but with effect from now. He kindly asked the Chairperson to ensure Ms Tshabalala was out of that office before the Committee moved from its meeting. At most, the Speaker should put effect to this issue by tomorrow.
The Chairperson noted the Committee did receive nominations and made recommendations for appointment of SABC Board and chairperson which then went to the House before the appointment was made by the President. This was the process with Ms Tshabalala. She indicated suspension was already suggested at some point earlier but now it came when the matter was finalised. Ms Tshabalala was well aware she did not possess the qualifications she claimed she had. she said the decision of the Committee to suspend Ms Tshabalala did not need to be ratified by the National Assembly but could be put before the Speaker to be sent to the House while the suspension was sent to the President. The Committee could possibly look at filling the position when it returned next year.

Adv Vanara brought to the Committee’s attention the point that Judge Baartman made in the Western Cape High Court. The Judge observed that once the Committee had finalised its report on the matter which contained its own findings and recommendations, the Committee would then have to afford Ms Tshabalala an opportunity to comment on the report. The reason was that Ms Tshabalala was not a member of the National Assembly and when the Assembly deliberated on the matter, she would not be in a position to speak for herself. Those comments, together with the Committee Report, were to be sent to the Assembly for the Committee to comply with the Rules of Natural Justice. This step needed to be factored in and he thought it did not affect the recommendations Members were making.

The Chairperson was aware of this factor. She asked how many days could be reasonable allocated for Ms Tshabalala to comment on the Report.

Adv Vanara did not know on the spot what a reasonable number of days were.

The Chairperson asked what Members suggested.

Ms N Ndogeni (ANC) suggested seven days. This was seconded by another Member.
The Chairperson agreed seven working days.

Adv Vanara thought seven days was a bit harsh and recommended 14 days.

The Chairperson was attracted to 14 working days which was more than two weeks as it excluded the weekends. This was reasonable enough.

The Chairperson took the opportunity to thank the Committee staff who had worked so hard on preparing documents and sorting out logistics and she received pleasure from working with the staff. She thanked Adv Vanara for working with the Committee as well and Members had learnt a great deal from the process. She thanked the witnesses and Mr Van Wyk for his patient travel – it showed the relationships between Parliament and institutions of learning were quite good in this sense. She thanked Members – it was not an easy process and she sincerely appreciated the support and patience she received from all Members across the board. She recognised the public interest in the matter and she would like all to see Parliament did take up matters seriously. She was confident of Parliament ratifying qualifications with the Committee recently appointing the head of the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) with the process carried out thoroughly. The experience had made everyone much more careful in dealing with appointments but she was confident they could be done properly. She assured everyone dealing with issue of verifying qualifications would improve soon.
 
The meeting was adjourned.