Media Development and Diversity Agency status Report; SABC Report: Referral by Speaker

Meeting report

Opening of meeting

The Chairperson said an apology had been received from the Minister of Communications, who was booked off all of that week, and that the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) delegation was being led by the Acting Director General. He had not received apologies from those Members who were absent, as well as the Deputy Minister, who was not present. The meeting would continue on that understanding.

Mr M Ndlozi (EFF) said that the Committee should record the concern that the MDDA delegation was not being led by an accounting officer and political leadership. He felt that there was no use in having the meeting, and asked what the use was of having two people who were paid but who could not come and account to the important institution, Parliament. It should be recorded that there had been no apology received from the Deputy Minister, and that it looked as if it had become the norm not to apologise. Was she taking her position as Deputy Minister seriously? A message should be sent to her, advising her that she ought to respect the Committee.

Ms P van Damme (DA) seconded. There had been no apology from the Deputy Minister, who had attended the Committee meetings only once since she was appointed as Deputy Minister. The Committee should register serious dissatisfaction at her absence. She commented that it looked like there was a big delegation from the MDDA, and to bring such a big delegation was illustrative of a failure to take economy into consideration.

The Chairperson suggested that perhaps the Deputy Minister was in her way to the meeting. Even though she might be in her way, she knew that she supposed to be there at 10h00, and it was already 10h20. Was she still coming?

Referring to the work of the Committee on the following day, he said that one of candidates who was to be interviewed to fill an SABC board vacancy had written a letter to withdraw from the short list. He read out the letter. Following his withdrawal, there remained 35 candidates, and the Committee should reflect on this.

Mr M Kalako (ANC) said that the withdrawal was accepted.

Members agreed.

The Chairperson asked the MMDA team to introduce themselves before the Kwazulu-Natal oversight report was considered.

Ms Van Damme said that there was a Chief of Staff in the office of the Minister and two advisors, and the Minister was not there. What were they doing there if the Minister was not there? Were they there to represent the Minister so that Members could direct questions to them?

The Chairperson responded that questions should be directed to the person leading the delegation, who was Ms Qinisile Delwa, Acting Director General (DG). She could delegate who would respond.

Ms N Tolashe (ANC) welcomed the Acting DG, and asked her when the Department would employ a permanent DG. She should explain about the office of the Minister in her absence, as the office was still represented by the Acting DG, who should enjoy discretion to state who should respond to questions.

Mr M Gungubele (ANC) said that if a person held the position of advisor, his or her duties should remain or be restricted to acting in that capacity.

The Chairperson said that the Committee should start by considering the Kwazulu-Natal oversight report simply because it informed the Committee about what was happening on the ground and talked to the situation prevailing in the MDDA. What the Committee found on the ground was reflected in the report.

Ms Van Damme said that she wanted to talk about the agenda. In the new agenda, the report from the Speaker was no longer included. Would this report be discussed? It had been agreed in the previous meeting that the report would be discussed.

The Chairperson agreed that it would be discussed, given that from the following day, the Committee would be dealing with interviewing candidates for the SABC board.

He added that he had been informed that the Deputy Minister was on the study leave, but it had not been made clear up till when. An official from the office of the Deputy Minister responded that the Deputy Minister would be completing her Masters’ degree at the end of the year. From time to time, she had classes to attend.

The Chairperson said that the Deputy Minister was on study leave until the end of the year, and that was an apology from the Deputy Minister for not attending the meeting.

Mr Kalako said that he did not agree with that kind of an apology. It was merely an explanation, and this explanation should not distort the nature of an apology. The apology should be in writing, and no apology for the whole year should be accepted.

The Chairperson said that Mr Kalako was right. She ought to respond in writing.

Ms Van Damme concurred. The Committee supported the notion that officials should further their education. However, when it came to conducting an oversight over the office of the Deputy Minister, she should put in an effort to account to the Committee. She was not missing a Parliamentary sitting, and she could make a time to respond to an invitation from the Committee. She should write down what her apology was.

Mr Ndlozi sought clarity on whether the Deputy Minister’s apology was based on her study leave. When had she started studying? The Committee should reject that apology because in his view, she was so malicious. The Committee should write to the leader of the business of government. A letter should be sent to Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, the Vice-President. The Deputy Minister had never attended the Committee’s meetings.

Mr Gungubele said that the Committee should hear the Department’s presentation, even though the Minister and Deputy Minister were absent. The Committee should get on with the business of the day.

Ms Tolashe seconded Mr Gungubele. She proposed that the Committee should hear the Kwazulu-Natal report first in order to be able to deal with problems at hand. The Deputy Minister ought to state reasons of not attending in writing. However, the consideration of the status of the MDDA was very urgent and should be separated from the question of apologies.

Ms V van Dyk (DA) agreed. She raised concern about the report that had been received early that morning.

Ms M Matshoba (ANC) commented that whatever problems the MDDA was suffering from should be placed on the shoulders of the Deputy Minister.

The Chairperson remarked that Members should listen to presentation before the Committee started pointing fingers.

Mr Ndlozi said that there was a problem of reports being delayed. It was not viable to discuss the report which he had received in that morning, as he did not have time to go through the final report. He would not be able to engage with the report.

The Chairperson said that the report could be dealt with at later stage.

Mr Kalako said that Members had read the previous draft, and they were expected to understand the contents of the report.

Ms Matshoba said that the Secretary of the Committee was not delivering reports on time.

The Chairperson said that there were some changed on items on agenda. He proceeded to item two which was the brief by the Minister, and noted that such brief would be provided by the Acting DG. The Kwazulu Natal report would be dealt with later.

Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA): Status report

Ms Delwa, reporting on behalf of the Minister, said that the question raised by Ms Tolashe was easy to answer, because the Minister was in the process of filling the positions of the DG and DDG. When the Minister came in, there had been an attempt to fill them, but she had had to restart the process because there had been only one application for the DG position. Regarding the DDG, the Minister had completed the short-listing and a date had been set for interviews. The question spoke to the heart of the challenges that the Department was facing. The MDDA and other entities were reporting to the Department of Communications (DoC), but the work the Department was supposed to be doing was lacking.

An important point to make was that since the Minister had assumed her position, she had tried to stabilise the MDDA by a way of completing the Board. There was a process which was with the President to finalise. The Minister had been pushing that process, and it would be finalised soon. The appointment of members of the MDDA Board was reserved for the President to make. The process was in Parliament and it was hoped that the process would be finalised soon. It was the Board that would be filling the executive positions, including the Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

Another intervention was the secondment of Mr Donald Liphoko by the Minister to the MDDA as Acting CEO. It was an attempt to solve the problem of the MDDA by bringing a person with the skills required to provide support. From time to time, the Minister had been engaging with the MDDA Board on its current state, and the MDDA could have continued to carry out its programmes despite the challenges it was facing. There was a problem of a quorum at the Board, and the Minister was involved in ensuring that it was functioning properly.

Board presentation

Ms Phelisa Nkomo, Chairperson: Board of the MDDA, took the Committee through the presentation, which focused primarily on the MDDA mandate; its vision, mission and values; the legislative environment; the National Development Plan (NDP); alignment with the DoC; the 2016/17 and first quarter performance; initiatives going forward; strategic five-year priorities; the review of the MDDA Act and the MDDA status quo.

Achievement of targets stood at 69%, meaning that 42 out of 61 targets had been achieved during the 2016/17 financial year. In the first quarter of 2017/18, only 10 out of 30 targets (33%) were achieved,

In respect of media transformation, the MDDA approved more community media projects in the 2016/17 financial year than in any year since it had awarded its first project in 2004. In line with mandate to support projects in historically disadvantaged communities, support had been weighted towards projects in rural areas. As regards social transformation, the MDDA had worked towards the expansion of powerful initiatives for building social integration and cohesion between communities.

The MDDA had raised R72 million to ensure that it was financially empowered to make a significant impact, and had facilitated – through a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the DoC – R21 million to support community radio stations with broadcast studio equipment. In terms of capacity building, various initiatives had been undertaken, including internships, partnerships, orientation workshops, training, representation and research projects. There had been a number of engagements with various stakeholders.

Ms Nkomo highlighted key points of the 2017/18 first quarter. These included R8 811 000 disbursed to community broadcast media and R2 133 000 to small commercial and community print projects; staff competency assessments completed and personal development plans drawn up; a permanent human resources and corporate affairs manager being appointed to intensify recruitment; and engagement on a proposed agreement between DSTV media sales and the Competition Tribunal.

The MDDA’s initiatives going forward included media transformation, review of the MDDA Act, enhanced media literacy training, increased outreach programmes, monitoring and evaluation, and bilateral meetings with the SABC, the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS) and the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA).

The MDDA was in a state of urgency, as it had seen a deterioration, incoherence and a lack of leadership at management level in the past four months. The entity was characterised by the flawed recruitment process, tension between the Board and staff, and had experienced internal and external funding pressures. As a result, the MDDA Board had requested the secondment of the Acting CEO to be rescinded. MDDA Board had sent action points to be addressed by the Acting CEO and the achievement of these would be monitored by the Board weekly, as per the Minister’s intervention.

Ms Nkomo said that total revenue for 2017/2018 stood at R66.7 million. The main source of revenue was broadcasting media (48%), departmental grants (45%) and interest (7%). The MDDA had, however, developed a business case to secure additional external funding from the private sector and other funders. Total expenditure had been R66.9 million and R68.3 million in the previous financial years.

Discussion

Mr Ndlozi proposed that the CEO should be given an opportunity to speak. In the report, contradictions had been highlighted. It was important that the Committee hear the CEO’s story.

The Chairperson said that the report had had two parts: the normal format, while the last part was a diagnostic report of the Department.

Ms Van Damme seconded Mr Ndlozi’s proposal. The CEO should have presented to the Committee, and not the Chairperson of the MDDA’s Board. The CEO was the executive who was running the MDDA, and the Board Chairperson had a non-executive position. The Board Chairperson’s presentation was illustrative of the fact that she ran the entity and micromanaged the Acting CEO.

Mr Tolashe and Mr Kalako agreed. The CEO should speak on the status of quo of the MDDA.

The Chairperson said that the CEO should provide the Committee with his perspective on the status of the MDDA.

Acting CEO on MDDA status quo

Mr Diphoko thanked the Chairperson, and said that all the individuals from the MDDA had been there before. What had been happening at the SABC was happening at the MDDA. The situation was strikingly similar. He had had an opportunity to be with an old SABC, and the situation was no different. The presentation made could be accepted only if one was not aware of what was happening on the ground.

He would have written a power point presentation differently. He would have questioned the Board’s decisions, looked at corporate governance, and talked about intimidation. He would then have asked: what could have been done? Do we allow the status quo to remain and put the 400 community media that had been supported in peril? Or do we take a position that we have an opportunity to build the MDDA and get a sustainable entity?

There were serious issues in terms of the representation of the entity. They revolved around what happened in the organisation. Slides 22 to 24 of the presentation were the views held by the Board. He would argue that these views had no basis. The presentation had stated that the MDDA Board was constituted by diverse members, but his view on this was that there were three acting members. If one read the Board Charter, one would see what was expected from members in executive meetings. If one missed a meeting, questions could be asked about his position on the Board. There was no diversity, and members had none of the required and diverse skills. There was no Developmental Charter in the organisation. It was the Board that approved proposals for funding.

What the MDDA had was suspension and the deliberate marginalisation of suppliers, and accusations of favouritism; there was arbitrary support of beneficiaries; some projects were fast tracked, and staff did not know the actual criteria which they could use for the execution of projects. There was a tendency to victimise the staff. Members of the Committee should ask questions around why Board members had resigned. He had inherited a wounded organisation.

Mr Diphoko had a different view on how the capacity of organisation should be developed. What he had noticed was that three members were instrumentally institutionalising a culture of intimidation. There were preferences and intimidation in the daily operation of the organisation. The modus operandi was straightforward. Members would target non-cooperative employees and arbitrarily change their responsibilities, and sponsor third parties to assassinate their personality and professional character. They initiated damaging disciplinary and illegal hearings and took actions that were meant to frustrate employees in order to rule the organisation.

There were high legal costs, and the question should be: what was the nature of the cases? These were kind of questions that the Committee should be looking at. The litigation happening in the MDDA was primarily against employees. Employees had raised grievances during the Committee’s oversight visit and had written two petitions to Parliament. They had questioned the ethics of members and called for an independent inquiry into their behaviour. Since 2014, the MDDA had had six accounting officers. According to the Auditor General’s (AG’s) report, there was no executive officer. Some officers were appointed regularly by the Board, and their contracts were terminated by the Board. One had resigned to preserve her professional reputation. Two accounting officers – seconded by the national government – had been requested to return to their departments, following pressure from the Board. The two internal acting appointments had suffered from health concerns – one had resigned and other was medically incapacitated. The organisational design process had been used cynically by the Board to punish and coerce employees, calling into question their qualifications and remuneration, and their seniority in the organisation. Bursaries were allocated in order to punish other employees.

The ideal of building a knowledgeable and learning organisation was good one. However, there was no human resource development plan in the organisation. There was no funded strategy to build a knowledge-based organisation. There no strategy developed to illustrate how the plan would benefit the organisation or the radio community sector. This was the case, irrespective of appointing three human resources specialists and consulting companies to assist in the management of the organisation.

Mr Diphoko agreed with the presentation slides that spoke about the challenges in the management. The Board was alleging that the recruitment had been stalled, and he wanted to make clear that those employees who had left the organisation had not left because of what he had done. When he was appointed, those positions were already vacant. When he inquired why some executive positions were vacant, he had been told that they were waiting for the CEO to be appointed, and to recruit his/her own people. It did not work like that. Such an approach compromised the interests of the organisation.

The new human resources manager had stated that there had been a lapse in the recruitment plan. There had been interference in the recruitment and appointments. This was actually the context in which he had been targeted. The matter was taken to the Board however there was no action to rectify those mistakes. There was also diversity in the staffing profile. On one hand, the Board talked about how the organisation was diverse and how they were going to embrace people with disability. In essence, if one looked at the profiles of employees, it did not reflect the people the organisation was supposed to serve. There was only one disabled person -- a white man. There was no language representation. He had established a panel mandated with addressing the issue of diversity, and their recruitment plan had been approved and it was being implemented. It engaged with human resources management to assist in the recruitment. There was no need to outsource the human resource management.

He wanted to put on record that the relationship between the executive and the Board had deteriorated. He had agreed to mediation by the Minister. Despite that, the Board had tried to terminate his secondment without consultation with the Executive Authority. Security had been instructed to prevent him from entering the building. Normally, this occurred when the staff protested and prevented the management from entering the building. The Board had tried their best to prevent him from reporting to his duties. He was surprised that after the Minister’s intervention, the Board had continued to comment on the matter and raise questions about his reputation and abilities.

There had been no proper consideration of the proposals that were tabled at the Board meetings. He was never called to come and contribute or suggest anything to be added on the agenda. The agenda was sent to him two hours prior to meetings, and this had the effect of limiting his contributions at the Board meetings or of adding value to the discussions. He could not do any research or compile any documentation, which were important aspects to assist the Board members in their deliberation and for him to add value to the meetings of the Board.

He had been accused of a divisive leadership style. The Board purposely isolated, misdirected and misinterpreted the actions of those who they perceived were standing in their way. He had engaged with the Deputy Minister on these matters. She had requested a meeting with the Board, but the Board had not honoured her invitation. In this respect, the Board had misled the Committee when they stated that they had received instructions from the Deputy Minister. Members of the Board had consistently defied the Deputy Minister’s calls and instructions. There were several communications from the Deputy Minister, and there should have been a better relationship between her and the Board.

Mr Diphoko said that he was accused of lacking leadership skills. He was accountable for Quarter Four, because the other quarters had not been implemented under his leadership. He could not do the annual financial performance report without it being audited. He had not been invited to the meeting to review the quarters by the Board, and no minute of the meeting had been communicated to him.

In 2011, the Competition Commission had begun an investigation into collusion between the marketing and advertising sectors involving anti-competitive behaviour under the MoU. He had been instructed to cancel the MoU, and he wondered if the cancellation had been in the interests of the organisation.

Discussion

The Chairperson asked why the MDDA had been going down since 2014. It was important to get to the root of the problem.

Mr Kalako commented that the status of the MDDA was really shocking. It was fortunate that the Committee had conducted on oversight visit and had had an opportunity to listen to the employees, executive and the Board. He proposed that the Board member should not be given an opportunity to respond. The Committee should rather squeeze another day into its programme on which the Board could come along with the Minister and Deputy Minister to brief the Committee. The Committee was not conducting an inquiry. It was a meeting. The Board should be given an opportunity to come back and respond.

The Chairperson said that the brief had been characterised by allegations and counter allegations.

Mr Gungubele supported Mr Kalako, and said that he needed to highlight certain important points. For the proper functioning of the MDDA, a good relationship between the CEO and the Board was a must. In the presentation, it had been mentioned that there had been a lack of implementation of certain decisions. Surprisingly, these decisions had been taken by the Board, and not the CEO. This was an illustration that the Board, as a non-executive body, was running the MDDA, so decisions had been taken without the approval of the executive management. This illustrated the need for the Committee to intervene in the leadership of the MDDA.

Ms Tolashe said that no one could allow having an entity that talked in different tongues. It was very disappointing. She acknowledged that the Minister was not present, and that it would have been better if she had been there to hear what the entity was going through. How could the Board undermine the legislation which provided guidance for its work? All that the Committee had heard, when it had conducted its oversight visit, as well as what it had observed from the protesters at the MDDA, had made her suspicious. The Minister ought to intervene in the MDDA urgently, and the Board should abide by the legislation.

Ms Matshoba supported Mr Kalako. She was of the view that the Deputy Minister ought to be present when the Committee deliberated on the MDDA matter. Because of the situation at the MDDA, she would refrain from asking questions. She questioned whether the MDDA’s report should be sent to the Minister, commenting that when the Board Chairperson had been presenting, some delegates were shaking heads. Such reactions and attitudes conveyed a message that information in the report was untrue.

Ms Van Damme remarked that this was the first time she had heard an entity presenting contrasting stories. They would usually pretend that the situation was normal and excellent. She thanked the Acting CEO for his bravery in speaking out. This would allow the Committee to make a value judgment. Here and there, the Board Chairperson had shown that she was in charge of the MDDA, and that the CEO has no say over the entity. This evidence of this leadership style showed that there was a huge problem that could not be resolved overnight. The Minister should be invited. There was a need to conduct a forensic audit into the financial performance. The situation at the MDDA was disappointing. An inquiry into the fitness of the Board should be conducted.

Ms Van Dyk agreed. She asked whether a newspaper article about the MDDA had been the truth. Were there meetings taking place to consider these issues? On slide 23, the Board had acknowledged that the organisation was experiencing a deterioration, and the Committee had been receiving letters from people who wanted protection. All these facts pointed to the need to institute an inquiry into the state of the MDDA.

Mr Ndlozi stressed that the report should be rejected. Members were not fools. It ought to be recorded that the report should had been written by the Acting CEO, and not by the Chairperson of the Board. The content of the report was not being rejected, but the manner in which it had been presented should be rejected. The Board Chairperson was not the accounting officer -- she was a non-executive officer. For that reason, the CEO should have addressed the Committee. The CEO was one to account to the Committee.

The Board ought to be ashamed, because the report demonstrated its style of governance. The Committee would not like to meet with the MDDA again under the same circumstances. The Minister was needed to be around to state her view. The Committee was left with no option but to propose an inquiry into the Board, which might result in it being disbanded. When the Committee had done an oversight visit, it had encountered disorganisation within the entity. Since he had been a Member of the Committee, it had been the same situation with the MDDA. He proposed that the MDDA delegates should be released. For the next meeting, the delegates should be mindful of the resources of the organisation and thus refrain from bringing everyone to it. He did not know what the condition of the Minister’s health was, but he was expecting her to be present at the next meeting. If she was still too weak, to the extent that she could not attend a meeting in the following week, it should be postponed. At that meeting the core problems, including the attitude of the Board, should be discussed.

Ms Matshoba seconded Mr Ndlozi. The Board’s report ought to be rejected. It should not be recorded. The Board should collect its report and leave.

Ms Tolashe agreed. She said that the report did not exist, so it should not be recorded by the Committee. The MDDA should come back with the Minister. They should agree that they were facing a crisis. The report alone was self-explanatory of the governance of the MDDA, and it was apparent that the entity needed to be reorganised.

The Chairperson said that a decision was needed to be taken on the way forward. An inquiry would be decided upon after hearing the Minister’s brief. The Minister was on sick leave up until the end of the week, meaning that she would be available the following week. When the Committee reconvened next Wednesday, the Minister would be present when it dealt with the MDDA. The SABC matter should be dealt with on the following day. The report to be received would be from the Acting CEO. Members were agreed that the report should come back in a different format.

The Board’s report was neither accepted nor recorded. The MDDA delegation was excused.

SABC Report: Referral by Speaker

The Chairperson said that the report on the SABC had been referred to the Committee two weeks ago, and Members had agreed that the legal team should be invited to brief it in order to deal with the matter properly. He sought clarity on how to proceed.

Ms Van Damme said that the report had been referred to the Committee two weeks ago, after having sat on the Speaker’s desk since June. She supported the idea of having legal services’ advice, but she had gone through the report herself and it was quite clear. The legal services had given them a mandate to investigate who had given information, or misled the SABC inquiry, with a view to laying criminal charges in terms of the Powers and Privileges Act. The report had identified three individuals, including former Minister Faith Muthambi. Parliament had to lay charges against them. Therefore, the Committee could not delay this process. All parties had adopted the recommendations of legal services. Ms Mutambi had not appeared before the Committee, and today the Deputy Minister of Communications had not attended the meeting. It was time “to put the money where the mouth was.” The Speaker of Parliament ought to walk down the road and go to the police and lay charges. If she did not want to do it, then the Committee should do so. Members could not afford to allow such situation to persist.

Mr Ndlozi read out points 20 and 23 of the report. He sought clarity on the intention of the Speaker when she had referred the report to the Committee. The proposal, in dealing with the criminal responsibility, was to lay charges. Before the Committee took a decision, it was advisable to hear from the legal advisors. There were many police stations dealing with people who abused the administration. The Constitutional Court ruled that a person who broke the oath ought to be removed, but the Constitution said that such misconduct ought to be a serious violation. The Committee ought to decide whether the misconduct had been serious or not. The Committee had more power than police stations. In relation to Members of Parliament and entities, the Powers and Privileges Act was a crucial instrument. The Committee should hear what the legal advisors had to say and take it from there. It would be able to determine whether they should approach the police or not. It should not rush to go to the police station.

The Chairperson agreed. He said that the legal advisors would advise on how to proceed.

Ms Tolashe remarked that the legal advisors should indicate what to do in order to reach a proper conclusion.

Ms Van Damme said that she was not opposing the legal advisors, but it should be noted that a request had been made for the individuals who were implicated to furnish the Committee with written submissions.

Mr Gungubele said that there was nothing to worry about, as the evidence was on record. What the Committee needed was to have the evidence assessed by the legal advisors, and advise the Committee accordingly.

Mr Ndlozi suggested that the Speaker of Parliament should brief the Committee on what she preferred the Committee to do, or clarify further instructions that she had given. In his understanding, the Committee was grappling with the question of how an individual who had intentionally misled Parliament should be dealt with.

The Chairperson agreed. He said that the office of the Speaker would be invited to brief the Committee, along with the legal advisors.

The meeting was adjourned.