ICASA councillors: recommendations selection

Meeting report

The Chairperson said that the agenda for the meeting was to select the three candidates who would be presented to the Committee and the Minister for the position of councillor at the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA). Despite the scoring pattern, the selection process must also satisfy the ICASA Act, which stipulated that a candidate must be an advocate and demonstrate an understanding of global information and communication technology (ICT) practices, key regulations in the broadcasting and ICT sector, and key legislation governing broadcasting matters of South Africa. In addition, the selection had to reflect gender parity and accommodate each race.

Mr R Tseli (ANC) supported the submission of the Chairperson on the selection of the successful candidates based on the Act, and the other factors outlined.

The Chairperson invited each Member to make submissions for three candidates, and also to motivate why these candidates were chosen.

Ms P van Damme (DA) informed the sub-committee that the first three candidates, in no particular order, were Adv Dimakatso Qocha, Ms Nomonde Gongxeka and Mr Linden Petzer. She said that Adv Qocha was experienced in the stipulated contents of global ICT practices, andkey legislation and regulations in the broadcasting and ICT sector. She further supported Adv Qocha by stating that she had performed well in the interview. Motivation for the other two candidates, Ms Gongxeka and Mr Petzer, were that they had a good knowledge of the content and had performed well in the interview.

Mr Tseli (ANC) said that his three candidates were Adv Qocha, Ms Gongxeka and Mr Yengwayo Kutta. His motivation was that all candidates were qualified, had a good knowledge of the content and had performed well in the interview.

Mr M Kalako (ANC) supported each candidate that had been proposed by Mr Tseli, and also motivated for their selection based on Mr Tseli’s submission.

Ms N Tolashe (ANC) agreed with the submissions presented by Mr Tseli and Mr Kalako. She further supported Mr Kutta as the third candidate, based on his radio experience. However, she would have considered Mr Petzer as a successful fourth candidate if issues of transformation had not been included in the selection criterion.

It was observed that Mr M Ndlozi (EFF) was not yet present at the meeting.

Mr Tseli said that Mr Ndlozi had been informed about the meeting and if he was not available, then the sub-committee should continue without him.

Ms Tolashe appreciated how the Chairperson had always handled the affairs of the sub-committee, and suggested that the Members should communicate with Mr Ndlozi and wait for him to make his submissions before completing the list of successful candidates.

The Chairperson asked the Content Advisor to contact Mr Ndlozi and agreed that the Members would wait for him. He agreed with earlier submissions of the first two successful candidates Adv Qocha and Ms Gongxeka by Members, but said that his third successful candidate was Adv Stephen Kekana. He motivated for Adv Kekana by stating that the candidate was astute, had a legal background, displayed experience on the stipulated broadcast and ICT contents, and was honest. He argued that although Mr Petzer had better technical knowledge than all the other candidates and was experienced in the content stipulated, his interview had not reflected his broadcasting knowledge.

The Content Advisor informed Members that the mobile phone of Mr Ndlozi was switched off.

The Chairperson mandated the Secretary of the Committee to contact Mr Ndlozi.

Mr Tseli remarked that if Mr Ndlozi was not yet available, the sub-committee should continue with its deliberations.

Ms Tolashe observed that because the Members had been advised of the venue through a text message 30 minutes before the meeting, they should rather wait for Mr Ndlozi.

Ms Van Damme said that the candidate, Mr Kutta, did not have experience on broadcasting trends, and referred to the “Data Must Fall” campaign. He had been arrogant during the interview and acted as if he already had the job. He had been rash, and therefore she strongly objected his suitability for the position.

Mr Kalako observed that Adv Kekana would have been fit for the position, if not for the way he had answered the question on the abuse case. He added that the divorce case was still pending, therefore he would not be suitable for the position.

Mr Tseli said that he could not support Mr Petzer because his strength was technical experience, and a councillor needed experience in broadcasting content. Furthermore, he was not an advocate. Without changing the earlier three candidates he had submitted, he would include Adv Kekana as a fourth candidate.

Ms Van Damme further motivated by submitting that the ICASA council needed a candidate who had technical knowledge, as well as institutional knowledge of the sector over the past 20 years. Mr Petzer had technical expertise, oral capabilities and understood broadcasting content. During the interview, he had also mentioned that in 1994 he had joined the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) which preceded ICASA, so obviously he must have gained the trust of the current administration before he could be appointed to the IBA. Therefore, the sub-committee could prove that he was a part of the apartheid regime only if this was confirmed by Parliamentary security checks. His technical experience was a plus and issues of transformation aside, Mr Petzer was more capable than the remaining candidates.

Mr Kalako remarked that even though Mr Petzer was a good candidate due to his technical knowledge, many of the members already appointed to the ICASA Council had technical knowledge, and therefore he would not support his candidacy. He argued that although Mr Kutta had not performed well in the interview, he understood the broadcasting legislation. Furthermore, the candidate had experience in the protection of consumers and had a strong knowledge of the community.

Mr Ndlozi arrived and apologised for his lateness. He explained that he had been attending a joint committee meeting, and when it had ended it had been difficult to locate the venue of the sub-committee meeting.

The Chairperson explained that although the sub-committee had initially agreed to select the first three successful candidates based on the scores and assessment of each candidate, the criteria now included inputs from the ICASA Act and selections that reflected gender equality and accommodated each race. In addition, the sub-committee had agreed on two candidates but differed on the third successful candidate.

Mr Ndlozi asked if he needed to motivate the candidate that he had selected.

The Chairperson explained the motivation that each Member had submitted on the three candidates in contention for the third successful candidate.

Mr Ndlozi observed that based on his assessment, most of the short-listed candidates were not fit for the position of ICASA councilor. Most of the candidates had not demonstrated knowledge of the direction the world was going with ICT. Although he had not been involved in the selection of the short-listed candidates, the successful one had to be able to address the challenges that were being faced in the industry, such as the monopoly of digital media by Multichoice. He was tempted to call for a restart of the interview process in order to ensure that proper candidates would be selected. He said that Adv Kekana was not fit for the position, because of the abuse charge laid against him by his wife. In addition, Mr Kutta did not have experience on the broadcasting trends, with reference to the “Data Must Fall” campaign. He had tried to consider the experience of Mr Kutta in the radio sector, but he had not performed well in the interview. He therefore suggested that Adv Kekana and Mr Kutta might not be ready for any position in the country within the next five years. Consequently, he approved the candidacy of the two candidates, Adv Qocha and Ms Gongxeka, but was tempted to approve the candidacy of Mr Petzer on the grounds of his technical experience and his performance in the interview. However, Mr Petzer was an old white man who had worked in the apartheid era. He asked for an update on the motivation for Mr Petzer, but said that if the Members did not agree, the interview process could be started again.

The Chairperson agreed that the sub-committee could not be persuaded that Adv Kekana should be approved as a successful candidate based on the case of abuse instituted against him by his wife, and the way in which he had responded to the questions.

Ms Van Damme recapped her motivation on Mr Petzer to Mr Ndlozi. She repeated that the candidate had also been appointed by the current administration to the IBA. In addition, although the ICASA Council presently had members who had labour and ICT experience, it did not have members who had technical experience.

Mr Tseli said that for the benefit of Mr Ndlozi, the earlier argument was that he had technical experience, but did not have content as a Board member. He further argued that presently there was no deficiency in the engineering aspects.

Mr Ndlozi remarked that the Members needed to convince each other so that the reasons for different opinions could be identified and Members would know why they differed. Furthermore, the Members should not misinterpret the value of any candidate. Therefore, they needed to consider the experience of Mr Petzer, as stated in his curriculum vitae, as he was appointed by the present administration to lead and supervise in various offices of the Department of Communication. For instance, he had been appointed by the Minister of Communication as a non-executive director of the Universal Service and Access Agency of South Africa (USAASA) from 2004 to 2007, appointed into the digital broadcasting migration working group on Digital Terrestrial Telecommunications (DTT), and also appointed as chairman of the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) working group to develop national standards for DTT. His appointments had also included working with ICASA and appointments as a national expert on the recommendation of the South African Telecommunications Authority. Furthermore, he had installed transformers at the SABC when TV was introduced to the country. Nonetheless, he was uncomfortable with presenting two women and an old white man as successful candidates for the position of ICASA councillor.

Mr Tseli said although he did not dispute Mr Petzer’s CV, he could not pick up the content he wanted from the candidates’ responses.

Ms Tolashe said she was not contesting that Mr Petzer was a good candidate, but in her opinion he should be a fourth candidate. She added that Mr Petzer would not have been appointed in any position during the apartheid era without having a political affiliation. She would approve the candidacy of Adv Qocha and Ms Gongxeka, but would consider restarting the process for the third candidate if the Members did not agree.

Ms Van Damme argued that the Members could not categorically state that he had been affiliated with the apartheid regime when they had no evidence of his activities during the apartheid era. She would not have selected Mr Petzer if the ICASA Council already had a lot of white people as councilors, but she had selected him based on his qualifications and experience.

The Chairperson suggested that the deliberation could not be concluded without considering reports from security checks. Before the interview had started, the candidates originally short-listed had been five, because of Mr Kutta did not have police clearance from the South African Police Service (SAPS) in Pretoria. Mr Kutta had received a verbal clearance from police, but he had insisted that the sub-committee needed a written police clearance before the selection was completed. He said that the clearance would be available before the interview process was completed.

Mr Kalako reported that the SAPS in Khayelitsha, where the offence had been reported, had withdrawn the case from the court.

The Chairperson reported that Mr Kutta had completed a form that stated that the case would be resolved in two weeks but he had insisted that the sub-committee needed a police clearance from national SAPS in Pretoria.

Mr Ndlozi said that Mr Kutta might not be suitable for the position, even after police clearance was received from the national SAPS, because the candidate had not been superior to other candidates and had not inspired confidence during the interview. He therefore suggested that the two candidates could be submitted to the Minister.

The Chairperson remarked that based on the arguments, he had dropped Adv Kekana’s candidacy, but a decision needed to be made between Mr Petzer and Mr Kutta.

Mr Tseli said that although two candidates were needed to fill the ICASA positions, Parliamentary experience showed that when one candidate was needed, the Minister asked to make a choice from two candidates, but when two where needed, three candidates had to be submitted to the Minister for a choice to be made.

The Chairperson confirmed that the Content Advisor had reported that according to the Act, for the filling of two positions the Committee needed to submit three for the Minister to choose.

Mr Ndlozi observed that since the sub-committee had identified that it could not submit the names of Adv Kekana and Mr Kuttal, it could present Mr Petzer.

Ms Van Damme (DA) asked if there was a way to submit four names.

The Content Advisor reported that the ICASA Act of 2006, as amended, stated that the National Assembly (NA) must submit a candidate list with at least one and a half times more candidates to the Minister for endorsement if the number of posts to be filled were more than one. Furthermore, if the NA did not subscribe to the candidates chosen by the Minister to fill the position, the NA had the opportunity to apply to change the candidates.

The Chairperson suggested that because the next meeting of the Committee was next week on Tuesday, the Members could think about the candidates and make a decision before the meeting.

Mr Ndlozi suggested that the Members could make a decision based on a majority.

The Chairperson stated that the proposal was too early.

Mr Tseli said that Mr Kutta needed to submit his police clearance from a recognized institution to Members before the meeting of 29 November, so as to ensure that the sub-committee fulfilled its mandate before the time limit for filling the positions was exceeded.

Mr Ndlozi asked about the deadline for the appointment of a councillor.

The Chairperson resolved that since the next meeting of the Committee was Tuesday next week, the Members should meet 30 minutes before the Committee meeting to conclude the deliberations.

Mr Ndlozi said that the resolution was convincing, but he hoped that the Members would not return to the same issue if the clearance was not obtained before the next meeting of the Committee.

Ms Tolashe observed that the process for short listing had a deadline, but Mr Kutta had not met the deadline for submission of his documents before the deadline. However, according to the Chairperson, the process would need six weeks to get the clearance. Based on this, she suggested that at the end of the deadline, if Mr Kutta’s clearance was not ready, the sub-committee should agree that the candidate had been negligent and therefore the Members would be fair in making a decision.

The Chairperson said that the quorum of the ICASA council was still complete until the end of November, but after this period the positions would have to be filled because two of the councillors would leave at the end of November, so the sub-committee still had the opportunity to make a decision by next Tuesday.

Ms Van Damme argued that she disagreed with the choice, because the other candidate’s police clearance had not been considered in the same manner.

Mr Ndlozi observed that all the candidates’ security clearances had been considered before completing the short list.

Ms Tolashe said that all submissions would be considered, but Members should also consider the submissions made by other Members.

The Chairperson resolved that the sub-committee would consider the submissions 30 minutes before the next Tuesday meeting, and requested that the Parliamentary Monitoring Group (PMG) delay posting the audio until the three candidates had been selected.

The meeting was adjourned.