The Committee heard submissions from the Petitioner, Ms Makudubela; the South African Broadcasting Corporation; and the South African Police Services.
The Chairperson said that the hands of the Committee were tightened because the hearing it was dealing with had been processed in different offices, including the Office of the Public Protector, the South African Police Services, the courts and all these kinds of institutions. Parliament did not at any given stage want to be seen and heard to be in conflict with the institution it had created. The Committee would hear this matter but the fact that the Public Protector had an opinion on the matter there was very little thing the Committee could do to that opinion. It was an area which the court might have said something on and it was important to highlight this so that the Petitioner submit knowing the constraints the Committee was under.
Members of the Committee briefly discussed and commented on all the submissions.
The Committee agreed to process all the information that was submitted before coming to a final determination.
The Chairperson said there was a request from Mr Michalakis who wanted to raise an issue before they start with the hearing.
Mr G Michalakis (Free State, DA) said that there was an internal matter the Committee needed to discuss for 5 minutes and would request that the stakeholders and media be excused.
The Chairperson asked the stakeholders and media to wait outside for 5 minutes so that the Committee could discuss Mr Michalakis’ request.
The Chairperson apologised for the inconvenience of engaging with internal processes of the Committee, but the very same internal processes did have a bearing on the hearing. One amongst others was that the hands of the Committee were tightened because the hearing it was dealing with had been processed in different offices, including the Office of the Public Protector, the South African Police Services (SAPS), the courts and all these kinds of institutions. Parliament did not at any given stage want to be seen and heard to be in conflict with the institution it had created. The Committee would hear this matter but the fact that the Public Protector had an opinion on the matter there was very little thing the Committee could do to that opinion. It was an area which the court might have said something on and it was important to highlight this so that the Petitioner submit knowing the constraints the Committee was under.
The Chairperson warned the Petitioner that when she appeared before the Committee she must state accurate facts as she knew them because her testimony was deemed to be under oath and any misrepresentation of facts might lead to a prosecution under law. The fact that the Committee had her documented petition she did not need to go through the whole document but just summarise the facts that were contained in her petition because time was not on their side.
Submission by Petitioner, Mrs Makudubela
Mrs Tloledi Makudubela said she sought justice on the following cases:
- The murder of her brother, Wilson Makudubela.
- The murder of her first man, Dr Johan Peter De Klerk.
- The murder of her late husband, Emanuel Khasourie.
- The assault by police on her and what Dr Van Wyk of the Steve Biko Hospital did to her leg.
- The damage on her spinal cord where she was beaten by diplomatic police at the Department of Foreign Affairs.
- The destruction of her video music by the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) on the Gospel Gold programme in January 2006.
- Her furniture that was taken by Government officials and given to a criminal girl and her boyfriend who were used to kill her late husband.
- Her car that was damaged by that girl and the police should be returned to her because it was taken by Parliament and the Traffic Department.
- Mrs Makudubela wanted everything that was damaged by Ms Enger Deyer with water witnessed by the police; these include her computer, music system, her bed, DVD and the video recorder.
- She wanted justice on the cases she opened in Cape Town, including a case of assault by security personnel in Parliament on 3 December 2015, case against Ms Pumsa Mboyiya who worked for the Speaker of Parliament Ms Baleka Mbete. Ms Mboyiya drove over her foot while she was sleeping next to the gate of Parliament on 18 December 2015; justice for her car radio that was stolen from her bag at the gate of Parliament; and justice for her clothes, shoes and documents that were stolen at the gate of Parliament; and justice for wrongful arrest by police at the Parliament gate on 11 February 2016.
Mr J Mthethwa (KwaZulu-Natal, ANC) said since time was not on their side could they allow the Petitioner to submit all her documents and the Committee would look at those documents because what she had stated was enough for the Committee to engage on that information and be able to finalise the matter.
The Chairperson asked Ms Makudubela what it was that she wanted Parliament to do for her.
Ms Makudubela said she wanted Parliament to assist her to get justice on the cases she had stated above.
Ms B Engelbrecht (Gauteng, DA) requested that the Committee hear testimony from SAPS with regard to the alleged cases stated by Ms Makudubela.
The Chairperson said SAPS would make a submission when their time came.
Ms G Manopole (Northern Cape, ANC) requested that the Committee continue with other submissions because time was not on their side.
Mr D Ximbi (Western Cape, ANC) asked whether Ms Makudubela had counselling after her ordeal in terms of these cases.
Ms Makudubela said yes, she received counselling from her church; she was a Christian and did not believe in counselling by doctors, but counselling from her church.
The Chairperson said it looked like Members of the Committee were fine with the presentation from Mrs Makudubela.
Submission by the SABC
Mr James Aguma, Acting Chief Executive Officer (CEO) SABC, said he had listened to Mrs Makudubela and the SABC being a public broadcaster took her complaints seriously, and there was the need to support artists. However, they were in a quagmire in this regard in a sense that she had raised a couple of complaints and these had been investigated by the small claims court and the Public Protector. The Public Protector had declared that it was something the SABC should abide by in law. The Public Protector further stated that the SABC should do the following:
- The SABC should apologise to the complainant.
- The SABC should take steps to ensure that policies should be adopted that should guide them with interface with artists to ensure that their intellectual property was protected.
- The Board of the SABC should put in place written contracts to regulate the relationship between the SABC and performing artists to ensure that all time of engagements were in writing and complied with the Copywriter Protection of Performing Artists Act.
Mr Aguma said what the SABC had done as a corporation was as follows: On 5 June 2016, a written a letter of apology the artist. The corporation also developed an intellectual property policy which set guidelines when dealing with intellectual property of other parties. However, with the last two recommendations of the Public Protector they still need to put in place written contracts to regulate the relationship between the SABC and performing artists. The SABC had written to the Public Protector to seek clarity on how to implement that element, the reason being that the SABC did not contract directly with artists. Artists went to production houses, for example, they contract with the production house and the production house contracts with the artist.
However, it was important to listen to the complainant and the previous day the Group Executive of the SABC on Corporate Affairs met with the complainant and listened to her. He said if the SABC had done anything wrong to her they would go beyond the recommendations of the Public Protector and compensate her in whatever way because of the situation she had gone through. They recognised her as an artist and wanted to offer her something, but he was informed that the request she wanted was a bit out of their (SABC) budget. However, artists needed to recognise that when they brought content to the SABC it must be of broadcast quality, and the organisation encouraged their commissioning team to support upcoming artists.
Ms Engelbrecht asked Mr Aguma to indicate what the request was from the Petitioner.
Ms Manopole asked what kind of compensation the SABC was willing to offer the Petitioner, was it money or something else and whether this gesture would not set a precedent for SABC moving forward.
Mr Aguma said the SABC recognised what they called legends, artists who produced music before 2006 and who had not received royalties should be paid giving effect to the court judgement of 2006. However, the SABC also realised that from 1980 to 2006 there would be people whose contracts were not honoured and therefore they made a gesture of paying about R50 000 to each artist. Therefore, it was decided to also rope in the complainant out of goodwill and give her R50 000. But she had asked for something more which he could not reveal to the Committee because it was a private matter between the SABC and the complainant.
Ms Engelbrecht insisted that they should be provided with the exact request from the Petitioner because that wold influence the final decision of the Committee on this matter.
Mr Mthethwa said they should not get involved in the private negotiations between the SABC and the Petitioner because the issue before them was to resolve the dispute and finalise the matter.
The Chairperson said when he was listening to Mr Aguma he said the request from Ms Makudubela was exorbitant and something they felt they should not disclose, and as a Committee they should respect that space.
Mr M Mohapi (Free State, ANC) said when the SABC was presenting the Petitioner should refrain from making any postures.
Submission by SAPS
Major General Motsepe, Deputy Commissioner, Gauteng SAPS, said she met Ms Makudubela in mid-January 2016. She was leading a team in Cape Town central doing inspections and interventions. Ms Makudubela was brought to her by Station Commander Brigadier Mabusha because it seemed that Ms Makudubela was frequenting the station but could not get help. She spent 2 days with her explaining what she had explained to the Committee.
All the cases she had stated were with SAPS, including one of 2008 of the Russian guy which was a case of malicious damage to property. She had interrogated and questioned her in all these cases. There was a case she had omitted which was that of the lady that was cheating with Dr De Klerk. She was arrested for that case and appeared in the Ga-Rankuwa Magistrate Court and found guilty. She denied wrongdoing as she was also denying now. She gave them the case number and they accessed it and found she had been convicted in Ga-Rankuwa Magistrates Court.
Major General Motsepe said in the case of Dr De Klerk it was an armed robbery case because Dr De Klerk was a vet who frequented animals that were sick in the townships but unfortunately was robbed and killed.
The case of malicious damage to property was when Mrs Makudubela was staying with Mr Emmanuel Karoulus in Brooklyn, renting a room there. The landlord, Mrs Dreyer, did not recognise her and chased them away. She went to Brooklyn Police station to open a case of malicious damage alleging that Mrs Dreyer sprayed her laptop worth R7 500 with water and it was damaged. And when the police arrived to assess the damage on the laptop there was no laptop to be found. The police took a statement from Mrs Dreyer and the case went to court and was dismissed because of insufficient evidence.
Mr Mohapi asked what the outcome was when the Petitioner was convicted on the first case.
He also asked how it was established that Dr De Klerk was killed because of armed robbery because the allegation before the Committee was different.
Mr Mohapi asked what type of relationship the Petitioner had with Mr Karoulus.
Ms Motsepe said she would not want to speculate on the case of the conviction but requested that in due course the Committee be provided with documented proof of the conviction through the Committee Secretary.
On the murder of Dr De Klerk the motive in that case was armed robbery and there were witnesses who had testified in court and would also submit to the Committee documented proof thereof.
Major General Motsepe said Mr Karoulus was the boyfriend of Mrs Makudubela.
The Chairperson thanked everyone for their comments and inputs. The Committee would take all the information given and process it before arriving at a determination, and once finalised the determination would become a public document. All relevant stakeholders would be informed of the determination and outcome of the Committee.
The meeting was adjourned.
No related documents
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.