SABC Board: interviews day 2

Meeting report

The Chairperson said the purpose of the meeting was interview short-listed candidates that will serve on the SABC Board. Each candidate will be given 5 minutes to respond to the questions from Committee Members.

The following questions were asked of candidates:

Mr Sindile Kama
The candidate was asked to tell the Committee about himself and why he applied for this position.

He was asked:

•  to name the laws or acts that govern the SABC
•  what was the role is of the SABC Board?
•  what his stance is on the editorial independence of the SABC in the news room with regard to political influence on how SABC should report.
• whether he had checked the disclosure clause in the Act and whether he is not affected by it and what is contained in that clause.
• if appointed to the SABC Board, what he would do differently to avoid the dissolution of the Board.
• his view is on the review of the powers and the role of the executive directors of the SABC Board, and why it is necessary to review those powers.
•  what digital migration meant for the SABC.
• asked what his view is on the relationship between the SABC and its regulator ICASA, what the current state of affairs is and, if appointed as Board member how he will improve that relationship.
•  in terms of the Broadcasting Act whether it should be amended or it should just stay as it is. How could that Act be improved?
• with regard to the Board Charter under clause 8.2 where it is stipulated that the Board should give a strategic direction in terms of the role of the Board whether there are any other omissions that should have been there like technical and operational directions or the Board should only give strategic direction. What is the importance of the Board at technical level?
• what financial challenges the SABC is facing at the current moment.
• to explain his knowledge of the Three Tire System of the sector and what the SABC’s role in that system.
• whether SABC should be sold out.
•  if the SABC Board should also be represented by youth and disabled people.
•  what his relationship is with Wela Dlulane since he was nominated by him, did he approach him or was he approached by him.
•  what his business Promitone entails, does it have contracts with Government.
•  how the SABC will fund programmes in every province as he already stated in his responses, and where the SABC gets it’s funding from.
• what is the difference between ICASA and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa.
• if there was no remuneration would he have taken this position.
•  what the dangers are to access of information.
• why people should be forced to pay TV licences.
• what changes former Minister Muthambi proposed to the Broadcasting Act
•  his view is on the 90% local content of the SABC, and what his view will be on this if appointed as Board member.
• to explain what qualification he was bringing to make him the Board member.
•  if he had any questions for the Committee.

Refer to audio for responses

Ms Rachel Kalidass
Ms Kalidass was asked about herself and why she applied for this position.

She was asked:

•  since she was a previous SABC Board member if she could do things differently than what she could’ve done. Do you feel you should’ve spoken louder when you a board member?
• whether she should have made the Committee aware of what was going on at the SABC.
• what her view was on Pan-African content in SABC news coverage.
•  if the country should wait for digital migration in order for the SABC to deliver the right content for the country.
• what this systematic way is that will deliver the Pan-African content and change the SABC content.
• what funding model should SABC adopt or follow.
• what vision the SABC has for youth programmes.
• what the difference is between ICASA and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa.
• if she would have taken the position if there was no remuneration
• why people should be forced to pay for TV licences.
• what changes former Minister of Communications, Ms Muthambi proposed to the Broadcasting Act.
• her view is on the 90% local content of the SABC, and what her view will be on this if appointed as SABC Board member.
• If she had any questions for the Committee.

Refer to audio for responses

Ms Nomvuyo Batyi
Ms Batyi was asked to tell the Committee about herself and why she thinks she is the best candidate for this position. She was asked:

• what the difference is between the state broadcaster and the public broadcaster, whether the SABC is operating as a state broadcaster.
• to identify the weaknesses of the SABC since she was an ICASA councillor and how she will deal with those weaknesses if appointed as SABC Board member.
• to give an example of a situation where she had to stand up against wrong decision of her Executive or a Minister when she was a councillor of ICASA.
• how she stood up to the decision of the former Minister, Ms Muthambi who promised her a position of Chairpersonship of ICASA so that she gives a broadcasting licence to the Gupta Company.
• what she meant that the SABC does not have an online presence because currently the SABC has 885 followers online compared to other social media platforms.
•  how best they can improve the funding of the SABC and how best they could collect the revenue of the SABC.
• whether she believed in corruption because in the Sunday Times it was reported that Minister Muthambi offered her a position of Chairpersonship of ICASA in return for her to give a licence to the Gupta linked company, and why she didn’t go to the police and report the matter. No action was taken by Ms Batyi with regard to this matter, which makes her accessary into the fact.
• to explain why she dropped the case against the Minister.
• to explain in detail why she didn’t do anything about the case.
• to explain in detail what the legal action was about and why it withdrawn.
• whether there was a TV licence awarded to the Gupta Company and what else did the candidate do to make the public know what was happening.
• why they should trust her to be the member of the SABC Board if she is unable to communicate illegal things that happen at ICASA while she was there as a councillor.
• how she will use the experience she gained at ICASA.
• whether it is necessary to amend the Broadcasting Act or not.
• whether she had any questions for the Committee.

Refer to audio for responses

Mr Jack Devnarain
Mr Devnarain was asked what he thought of the role and review of the powers of executive directors of the SABC. He was also asked:

• asked what he will do differently in order for the Board not to be dissolved.
• to explain what good stories the SABC has.
• What he will do for South African actors if appointed to the SABC Board.
• to give one example of improving the funding of SABC.
• his view was on online presents of the SABC.
• whether his lack of leadership in a company will act against him for this position.
•  how he will protect workers if appointed as SABC Board member.
• how he will deal with the relationship between the Minister, ICASA and Management of the SABC since there is too much tension in this regard.
•  the difference between the state broadcaster and public broadcaster. Was SABC a state broadcaster in the last ten years?
• how he would manage his conflict of interest since he is an actor in Isidingo, which is an SABC programme, will he resign from Isidingo if appointed as SABC Board member.
• whether actors should be paid more than the R40 0000 per month they paid currently.
• what his future plans are for the SABC in the next 2 years.
• whether he has conflict resolution skills and if he ever experienced conflict resolution in his working environment.
• whether he was familiar with the Broadcasting Act and what the areas that need to be amended in this Act are.
• if he thought the SABC is the important source of information in the country.
•  what opportunities and challenges digital migration brings to the SABC.
• what knowledge and skills he is bringing to the SABC.
• to explain the multi-Channel of the SABC.
• whether as an actor he agrees with the method of appointments at the SABC Board.
• his view is on Arts and Culture and what he will do to promote Arts and Culture if appointed to the SABC Board.
• whether digital migration will bring more content and less costs.
• whether there is a conflict between imperative good governance and art. And in his past boards is there a balance and making sure that there are people who understand art?
• whether there should be coordination between the DTI and the SABC.

Refer to audio for responses

Mcebo Khumalo
Mr Khumalo was ask to tell the Committee about himself and why he applied for this position. He was also asked:

• to name the laws or acts that govern the SABC.
• what was the role of the SABC Board?
• his stance on the editorial independence of the SABC in the news room with regard to political influence on how SABC should report.
• whether he had checked the disclosure clause in the Act and whether he is not affected by it and what is contained in that clause.
•  if appointed to the SABC Board what will he do differently to avoid the dissolution of the Board.
• his view on the review of the powers and the role of the executive directors of the SABC Board, and why it is necessary to review those powers.
• what digital migration meant for the SABC.
• his view on the relationship between the SABC and its regulator ICASA, what the current state of affairs is and, if appointed as Board member how he will improve that relationship.
•  in terms of the Broadcasting Act whether it should be amended or it should just stay as it is. How could that Act be improved?
• with regard to the Board Charter under clause 8.2 where it is stipulated that the Board should give a strategic direction in terms of the role of the Board whether there are any other omissions that should have been there like technical and operational directions or the Board should only give strategic direction. What is the importance of the Board at technical level?
• what financial challenges the SABC is facing at the current moment.
• to explain his knowledge of the Three Tire System of the sector and what the SABC’s role is in that system.
• whether SABC should be sold out.
• if the SABC Board should also be represented by youth and disabled people.
• If he had any questions for the Committee.

Refer to audio for responses

Mr Victor Rambau
Mr Rambau was asked to tell the Committee about himself and why he has applied for this position. He was also asked:

• to name the laws or acts that govern the SABC.
• what is the role is of the SABC Board?
• his stance is on the editorial independence of the SABC in the news room with regard to political influence on how SABC should report.
• whether he had checked the disclosure clause in the Act and whether he is not affected by it and what is contained in that clause.
• if appointed to the SABC Board what he will do differently to avoid the dissolution of the Board.
• his view on the review of the powers and the role of the executive directors of the SABC Board, and why it is necessary to review those powers.
• hat digital migration meant for the SABC.
• his view is on the relationship between the SABC and its regulator ICASA, what the current state of affairs is and, if appointed as Board member how he will improve that relationship.
•  in terms of the Broadcasting Act whether it should be amended or it should just stay as it is. How could that Act be improved?
• with regard to the Board Charter under clause 8.2 where it is stipulated that the Board should give a strategic direction in terms of the role of the Board whether there are any other omissions that should’ve been there like technical and operational directions or the Board should only give strategic direction. What is the importance of the Board at technical level?
• what financial challenges the SABC is facing at the current moment.
•  to explain his knowledge of the Three Tier System of the sector and the SABC’s role in that system.
• whether the SABC should be sold out.
•  if the SABC Board should also be represented by youth and disabled people.
• whether he had any questions for the Committee.

Refer to audio for responses

Ms Harriet Meyer
Mr Davis said she was outspoken in the media, especially on the issue of Mr Hlaudi Motsoeneng.  He wanted to ask:

• when she was on board when the inquiry on the SABC was instituted and when Mr Motsoeneng was asked to appear before inquiry; what could she have done when the Minister prevented the Board from carrying out instructions and directives from the Public Protector?
• What would she have done as an individual to ensure that the recommendations of the Public Protector were carried out? The matter was not in the hand of Parliament but the Board, what would she have done when she could have been in the meeting in which the Minister prevented an inquiry from going ahead?
• To what extent did she think that SABC was becoming a stable broadcaster?
• Did she think that the SABC was predominantly a state broadcaster or a public broadcaster?
• Mr Davis commented that the SABC was in financial crisis and requested R8 billion to bail it out. What could she do to cut costs and ensure that the SABC met its mandate?

Mr Madisha said that he went through her CV and checked her contributions in the past. Her skills and experience rested on the creative side of filming and television. In his opinion, she lacked experience of directing a company the size of the SABC. Did she believe that this situation disadvantaged her position regarding her suitability for appointment in the Board? And if so, why? 

Mr Madisha said what had permeated the SABC were issues of corruption, mismanagement, and maladministration. In addition, members of staff were not well looked after. There was political interference. In his view, he hoped that she was a witness to that. He then asked the following question: If she were put on the Board, what would she do to turn around the SABC?

Ms Tolashe said that she noted her CV and asked her to talk particularly about the governance of the SABC because the Committee was in the process of interview; because the Board was dissolved due to the problem of governance. Could she take the Committee through her understanding of the governance of the SABC? Upon receiving a response, she further asked her to elaborate on the governance of the SABC in terms of the Broadcasting Act and to take the Committee through her understanding of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and her understanding of the relationship between the SABC and ICASA.

Mr Kalako said that he would follow up to her answers in consideration of her experience. She alluded to the fact that previously – prior to 1994 – looking at her experience, interference with SABC broadcasting towards the state broadcasting was not there. In her view, it was after 1994 that the SABC was turned into the state broadcaster. To her, before 1994, there was nothing like the state broadcaster.

Mr Kalako commented that the experience of black people differed from hers and they (black people) knew where he was coming from. If to her there was no state broadcaster, for them, that was a vicious one. He then asked:

• Was she aware or was she one of those who created the homeland radios? Did she know which programmes were played there? And there were films created by her companies which ridiculed and reduced blacks. These were programmes for blacks.
•  whether she was implying that the powers of shareholders needed to be looked at and how the pre-1994 shareholders’ powers were. The pre-1994 government was racist and she was not concerned about what it could broadcast. She owned the production company and did she ever think of transforming it.
• Was there not going to be the conflict of interest if she sat on the Board whilst involved in the publication and producing?

Mr Gungubele had one question. He asked what transformation challenges were in the arts and culture industry, with particular reference to participation and recognition. She should respond in the context of making money and finding opportunities in that industry. What were really challenges, and what was her role in dealing with these challenges?

Refer to audio for responses

Ms Dawn Earp

The Chairperson welcomed her to the Panel and asked her to tell the Panel about herself in two minutes. Three minutes was allocated to questions and answers session per a member.

Mr Tseli asked:

•  what the SABC stood to benefit from the Broadband environment.
• If she were to be appointed as a Board member, could she be able to market the SABC to South Africans given that what was happening in the SABC was negative.
• What was her view on the debate that the role and powers of executive power should be reviewed?
• Could she try to address the perceptions of South Africans or their mind-sets that the SABC was not just about television?
• Could she explain the current status of the relationship between the SABC and ICASA? What would she do to improve the trust relationship between these two institutions?

Ms Van Damme thanked her for making herself available. Ms Earp had an extensive CV with enormous experience but she lacked experience in the area of broadcasting. She asked:

•  what experience she would bring on board. Apart from her skills, what unique characteristics would she bring on board to make a unique contribution on the SABC?
• What did she think was a huge problem the SABC faced and how would she solve that problem?
• Referring to the SABC Editorial Policy, which was out for public comments, she asked what would be her inputs on the editorial policy amendment. Did she believe that the top management should be involved in the editorial decision making?

Mr Ndlozi asked what her views were on Africanism in relation to the SABC content? There was a view that we should be Pan-Africanists. Then he asked:

• Did she watch SABC? If yes, what was her favourite programme?
• She played a role in Anglo-American to register and enlist the company on the London Stock Exchange. That move was associated with capital flight and was associated with the mining industry in terms of Anglo-American activities. Did she think it was a good move? How did registering in London assist the South African mining technology? What was the benefit of taking capital from South Africa to London?
• The SABC was facing financial crisis and was requesting government to bail it out, the amount was still debatable. If appointed as a Board member, what would she do to bail out the SABC from financial crisis? Would she go and register the SABC in the London Stock Exchange?
• Did she ask herself the question of funding the SABC prior to sitting for an interview? How would she improve the funding? What information would she look at if she would like to learn the status of finances of the SABC?
• the SABC was a free-to-air service, he asked whether she supported the idea of adopting the e-TV approach of collecting or charging the views in order to make money.
• What was her view on the TV licence?

Mr Madisha said he went through her CV and had checked the work she had done in the mining industry. One would say it was a key that she would be able to contribute to the betterment of the SABC.

• There was the question of mismanagement of funds at the SABC.
• He had a problem of her not having been trained in communications and broadcasting. Did she think she would survive?
• In terms of managing the finances, she could do something. However, the core areas in which he believed were integral to the crisis could be a problem for her unless she could explain how she intended to go about them.
• She did not know or understand the role the Board would play in the running of the SABC. There was a reality in the country – the point that she had raised had to be considered – when it came to political competition whereby one would have people pushing their agenda to be broadcasted was where problems were created. What was she going to do with that?

Mr Davis remarked that there was a need for people with financial skills on the SABC Board and she had admitted that she had no such experience and she had not demonstrated that she had passion in broadcasting so far in this interview.

• What motivated her to decide to join the SABC Board in that case?
• In answering to Madisha’s question, she stated that the Board members should do what the shareholders required. He asked her to elaborate on that and state who shareholders were.
• Had she ever taken a stand on basis of the principle she believes in? If yes, what was that principle and when did she do?

Ms Tolashe said she had no questions.

Mr Gungubele said he assumed that she knew the challenges of the SABC and asked her to explain the concept of performance information in the context of management.

Mr Kalako said he was covered.

Mr Ndlozi asked whether she agreed to be nominated in the SABC because she was tired of being in the private sector. Was he correct? If so, why? Why not go to another public entity but choose the SABC? Could she explain to the Committee why she should be nominated to be the Board when she demonstrated a little passion to the SABC? Why not choose other entities such as SASSA if she wanted to make a great impact on the people?

Refer to audio for responses

Mr Krish Naidoo
The Chairperson asked Mr Naidoo to tell the Committee about himself and whether there was a conflict of interest and this should be done in two minutes. He further asked whether he was stating that he was a professional lawyer and what could be something unique about him that could distinguish him from other lawyers that would lead to recommending him.

Mr Tseli said Mr Naidoo was on the interim Board and the SABC often came to Parliament. When people spoke about the SABC they seemed to think it was about television.

• How would Mr Naidoo change the mind-set of the South African population to understand that the SABC was not only about television? Why was it important to change their perceptions? There were SABC radios.
• Since he was appointed on interim SABC Board, what were some of positive things that happened in the organisation?
• ​What did digital migration mean to the SABS and what advice would he give to the Minister in relation to digital migration, especially why it should not be delayed?

Ms Van Damme said that he was still working at Luthuli House as legal consultant. The Act said that people who worked for a political party could not be nominated to the Board. Was it not right for him to resign from the position? The idea was to get the Board independent from the political parties.

• In view of the above, why did he not resign from the SABC Board position? Could someone be nominated from the DA Office into the SABC Board? Would it this be right?
• Which SABC Committee did he lead? If he did lead the Audit Committee, he should explain this: There was a problem with a security tender – and what proved the authenticity of what had been said that in that email – the tender was awarded to Njaeli Security and the Board decided to give the tender to a different company; why was that?
• Was he on the Audit Board for three years? In those three years, a lot of things happened, including corruption; Mr Motsoeneng was removed from his position; there was endless litigation; and the totality of these brought the SABC to its knees.
• She appreciated the fact that he spoke out after leaving the SABC Board and that he testified before the SABC inquiry and asked why he did not speak out whilst he was still on the SABC Board. Why did he not come to Parliament to speak out on illegal actions taken by the Board? Why did he not write to the Chairperson of the Committee on Communications?

The Chairperson said that he did make a public comment that all members of the Interim SABC Board should not be considered. Besides that, this comment affected all of them. It was information received through public comments.

Mr Ndlozi asked

• whether he was an ANC deployee in the Board. Did he inform any member of the ANC about the CEO recess or appointment process? Had he spoken about such process with some in the SABC?
• Could Mr Naidoo explain to him what the charge was when he was in the boxing board? Who dismissed those charges? He said that if he were saying that an independent inquiry withdrew those charges; which was that body of inquiry?
• he was right to state that he was on leave for 12 months. If he was claiming that he was on leave for four months, how it should be stated that he was on leave for 12 months?
• Did he take a stand in the previous Board against maladministration and all other kind of things and the only thing he did was to speak in the public? Why did he not speak in public? He said that he spoke out publicly at the time the question of Mr Motsoeneng was raised. Why did he speak only about this when there were so many things happening? Mr Naidoo never told Parliament about these matters. If he did, he should give example.  Mr Naidoo had an opportunity to state on record what he did in respect of many wrongs that were happening at the SABC. What did he do except to oppose Mr Motsoeneng, which was easier to do.
• On the question of the Multi-Choice contract, he asked Mr Naidoo why he could go public when something was wrong in the SABC instead of approaching the relevant body or authority. Multi-Choice contract was illegal, why did he not complain internally? Why should he be appointed if he was unable to stop them? Why not resign to allow a new blood? Why should he be retained when he did nothing to save the organisation? Should the governance be respected even if it was illegal?

Mr Madisha thanked Mr Naidoo for his contribution. There were issues that needed to be solved for the SABC to move on and Mr Naidoo had played his part. He could not follow properly the situation that had permeated the SABC. He asked whether there was no way to get information. He knew there was a chairperson who was at the centre and there was no way – or any way – in which he could access such information and deal with the problem at the Board meeting. He had many questions but he would not ask them.

• His first point was that he chose to walk out because he could do nothing regardless of being an advocate. If he had to go back, how would he change the situation when a lot of things happened when he was there.
• The second question was that he belonged to and worked for a political party as a legal advisor. Would not there be a problem? How would he be in the SABC Board and, at the same time, act as a legal advisor to the ANC?

Ms Tolashe thanked him for availing himself for an interview and the work that he had so far done for the SABC. She noted that the SABC looked better than it was before the Interim SABC Board came in. The problem was that Mr Naidoo was part of the Board that had been dissolved. As a lawyer, he could have understood all the legal technicalities involved. She said that her understanding – as a layperson – was that Mr Naidoo could have blown a whistle about what was happening.

• She asked why he could not do things she could have done as a layperson. A layperson could see that things were being stolen.
• The name “Naidoo” had frequently been mentioned in the newspapers and conferences – in bad ways – and thus asked what he could do to ensure that he did not bring the Board into disrepute.
• There was reluctance of the Board to account to Parliament because the Board argued that it only received 3% of its funds from government. What was his take on that?

Mr Gungubele said Mr Naidoo had clarified some of questions in one way or another. On the practice that governed the behaviour of the Board member, he had a question that he wanted to ask. He said that he had read in the newspapers a number of his objections in the last three years.

• Three years was a long time and a period that forced him to ask a question. Looking at how he conducted himself in those three years, if he could look back, what could he do that would change going forward?
• ​Was it unreasonable to consider that he was part of the Interim Board? What were things that he thought he would do differently?
• The behaviour of the Board was deliberate and Mr Gungubele classified such behaviours as misdemeanour and stated that people who were deployed that time were of poor quality and sometimes qualified people did unspeakable things. This was a scenario that Mr Naidoo could find himself in.

Mr Kalako said that he was happy he had clarified the conflict of interests and that he had been working as a legal consultant. This was very good if one took into account what was happening in the country. Tomorrow, he could consult for the DA or EFF because he was restrictively a lawyer of the ANC. Considering that there were legislation and other legal documents to be adhered to, would he pursue his consulting work without influencing the Board in a political context. However, every political party, be it, DA and EFF had influence over the Board. To him, the key was the person that they would be deployed there as such person should work on their political interest, but should maintain his or her integrity and good character.

Mr Davis said his statement that he was not deployed by the ANC but by a group lawyers contradicted what he had said in Parliament last October. He quoted him saying that he was asked by the ANC to sit on the Board. Why was he saying that he was deployed by a group of lawyers? Did he not think that it was appropriate to go back and ask the ANC if it was good to stay in the Board? He said Mr Naidoo stood up against the Minister but this was done because he was serving a faction of the ANC because he worked with Mr Derek Hanekom, the former Minister of Tourism. He knew which faction where Ms Muthambi and Mr Hanekom belonged.

• He was serving an interest of faction and this was a problem of political deployment. What could he say about that? He said that perceptions were important in political life; did he not think that he would be damaging public perception by accepting the nomination? Was it not simple to resign from the ANC?

Mr Ndlozi said had two questions that could be give a precise and straightforward answer.

• Was it in conflict of interest for the ANC to pay his work done for them? Would he say that the ANC had no direct interest in the work of the SABC? Was he not in political dilemma to attend to both SABC and ANC?

Ms Van Damme said the CV did not demonstrate that he was consulted by all political parties as per his argument. The CV stated that he was a legal advisor to the ANC and offered a legal consultancy to the ANC. He was a freelancer to all political parties.

Ms Tolashe said that she was happy with the way Mr Naidoo responded. It was not a sin to be a member of the ANC or to offer services to the ANC. Members should focus on his ability to serve on the Board and not his political membership simply because every candidate belonged to a particular political party and this went far as history.

Mr Gungubele agreed that he should be act professionally and show the nation that he was independent.

Refer to audio for responses

Dr Nethengwe Gladys Thidziambi (different order, this  according to Google)
The Chairperson asked her to talk about herself and summarise her work and her knowledge about the broadcasting industry. He said she should answer questions within three minutes and should take that interview as a discussion.

Mr Tseli said that the mandate of SABC was to educate and

• asked her to mention three educational programme broadcasted by SABC radios;
• what was digital migration in her understanding and whether she had heard of the ICASA before and what did it do.
• What good things were happening in the SABC as far as she knew.

Ms Van Damme said that from her CV, she did not have skills required and asked

• why she wanted to serve in the SABC Board.
• whether she knew Mr Motsoeneng. Was she in the ceremony in which he was offered gifts of cows and other things? Why did she feel that he should be given those gifts? If she had heard of Motsoeneng leadership, did she think he had a good leadership?
• Did she understand about the Broadcasting Act? What did it relay?
• Was the SABC a mouth of the government? Was it a public broadcaster or state broadcaster? Did she know the distinction between the two?

Mr Ndlozi said that he was still mediating and he did not have a question.

Mr Madisha said

• she had served ANC at the provincial legislature and asked how she could reconcile ethically and morally being political imperative and office bearer and being non-partisan of the broadcasting board; was there no conflict of interests?
• asked that she should explain what she understood about the Board of the SABC and what she would do there or what she would do to improve the SABC to make sure that it worked properly.

Mr Davis thanked her for making herself available for interview and commented that she was a former ANC in the provincial legislature and asked whether he was correct to state she was head of ANC Women’s League.

• He asked her to tell the Committee about her involvement in the ANC Women’s League. Was she only a member of the ANC and did she think that political parties should be represented in the Board to have a spectrum of different views in the Board?
• He was of the view that she was following what was happening in the SABC and that one member of the SABC Board was removed illegally and asked what illegal act was committed by the Board.

Refer to audio for responses

Ms Matshoba (was not listed in summary number – no questions)

Ms Tolashe asked Ms Matshoba to take the Committee through what happened before they came to the process of interviewing people for the SABC Board position. Did she know what happened in the dissolved Board? Could she tell the Committee what she understood in her own story?

Mr Gungubele said he was covered.

Refer to audio for responses

Mr Kwanele Gumbi

The Chairperson asked Mr Gumbi to tell the Committee, within three minutes, about himself, including work experience and why he should serve as a member and if there was a disclosure in terms of the Broadcasting Act.

Mr Tseli said thought and spoke about SABC only as television. What would he do to change the people perceptions or mind-set? What was his view on the debate that the role and powers of executive directors and of the Board should be reviewed?

Mr Gungubele said that if one looked at the SABC, one would see that it was faced by various challenges. He asked what three challenges were that could be prioritised to be addressed. What could be improved in the Board Charter? If he had to start today, what would he do first to address those challenges?

Ms Van Damme said she looked at the CV and found that he had not obtained a (four-year) degree. Rather, he had many certificates. She asked

•  whether he had one creative idea of how to improve SABC financial status?
• What was a free content? She asked if he meant that the content could be used to make money;
• what he knew about editorial policy; what he thought should change in the editorial policy.

Mr Ndlozi noted that Mr Gumbi stated that he had three kids and believed in father’s rights and asked what he meant by that. Could he unpack this comment properly?

• It seemed from the CV that he placed emphasis on creative aspects and asked him to elaborate on his work. What were struggles that artists faced that should be given attention by the Board? 
• What would he like to address as a priority matter if appointed? 
• Could he get more content to be played because the SABC was stating that more local content was destroying its finances?

Mr Madisha

• Asked him to elaborate on his statement that the shareholder was interfering in the work of the SABC Board and that led to the collapse of the SABC.
• In his CV there was a line stating that: he was active in the media and communication, art and culture, health and investment and asked how these aspects would help the SABC Board?

Mr Davis asked:

• how he managed to get a postgraduate degree without a graduate degree?
• It was reported in the Newspapers that his business was associated with Sifiso Zulu. What was the nature of business relationship with Mr Zulu? Did he do any business with someone related to the President or with the President?
• Did he think the removal of Ronnie Lubisi from the SABC Board two years ago was illegal?  Why did he think it was illegal?
• When the Public Protector report came out stating irregularities around the Motsoeneng appointment and his salaries, the inquiry was advised. However, the Minister stopped the Board from instituting such inquiry. What was his view on that? Would he stand against the Minister and bravely insist that the inquiry should ensue?

The Chairperson asked how he should have handled such situation if he was on the SABC board.  

Ms Tolashe asked Mr Gumbi to speak about the question of the digital migration.

The Chairperson asked Mr Gumbi to explain how Parliament exercised an oversight over the SABC. What were challenges for the SABC to acquire rights to broadcast sports? How could he have addressed this matter?

Mr Kalako said that Mr Gumbi mentioned

• some Acts and certain internal documents governed the SABC. Amongst them, there were the Broadcasting Act and the Companies Act, which Act took presence over another?
•  How did he solve a problem that fell in these two areas of law?
• What was his opinion on the editorial policy? Was he familiar with important documents that regulated the relationship between executive directors and the Board members?
• If appointed as a member, what would he like to change?

Mr Ndlozi asked Mr Gumbi whether he was stating that the Company Act took precedence. the Minister removed three members – two years ago – using the Companies Act and there was a debate that their removal on the basis of the Companies Act was wrong. There was unequivocal consensus that the Broadcasting Act took precedence. Did he know why the Broadcasting Act should be given precedence? Finally, he asked what was wrong with Multi-Choice deal.

Refer to audio for responses

Mr Michael Bauer

The Chairperson asked Mr Bauer to tell the Committee about himself and whether there was a conflict of interest and this should be done in three minutes. He asked him to state where he had been working.

Mr Davis said that he would need guidance from the Secretariat and that it was not a question. His CV illustrated that he was a non-citizen and that he was a holder of permanent residence. According to the Broadcasting Act, an individual qualified to be on the Board if he or she was a citizen living in South Africa permanently.

The Chairperson said that under disqualification clause, a person would not qualify to be appointed to the Board if such a person were not a citizen of non-permanently resident in the Republic. He noted that this clause needed interpretation. He asked whether he was a citizen.

Mr Davis said that guidance from Secretariat was needed in order to proceed because it was they who did security vetting. 

Ms Van Damme was of the view that Mr Bauer should be interviewed whilst awaiting the decision of the Secretariat.

Mr Tseli agreed with Ms van Damme. He stated that he should be interviewed because he held a green ID book and he was already invited to sit for interview.

Ms Tolashe said that her difficulties were to define who should be interviewed. The question of being present should be set aside if he was not the right person.

Mr Ndlozi said that the law was clear and no legal guidance needed. He was a permanent resident and therefore he should be interviewed. It was wrong to stop the process and define what the term “permanent resident” entailed whilst he was there. He should leave and then the Committee decide how to deal with the matter. On basis of permanent resident status, he qualified and the Committee should interview him.

Mr Gungubele said that he would respect the decision of the Committee; however, he stressed that the legal inquiry was a prerequisite. He would be interviewed the following day when the matter was clarified. He should not be interviewed to create expectations that the Committee would not meet.

Mr Kalako said that Mr Ndlozi was wrong to state that there was no matter to discuss. The law state that an individual ought to be a citizen, not permanent resident. He was not a citizen. He was a permanent resident. Legal clarification was needed.

The Chairperson stated that this should be clarified and that legal advice was needed. The question was whether the Committee would be able to interview him the following day. If the legal advice stated that he would qualify he would be squeezed in in the following day and if the legal advice’s response was in negative, he would not be interviewed. He would be notified telephonically.

The Chairperson asked Mr Bauer to excuse himself.

Mr Ndlozi said that the Act did not prevent an individual who was a resident in the Republic from becoming a member of the SABC. Why should an individual be screened before coming for an interview?

Mr Davis stated that all applicants were more than 300 from which 36 candidates were shortlisted. All applicants could not have subjected to security screening. Nonetheless, screening the shortlisted candidates had to be subjected to security vetting. It included examination and verification of qualifications, previous convictions, their history of work, etc and asked whether that process did take place.

The Chairperson noted that it was agreed that security vetting and interviewing would take place simultaneously. Security vetting was expected to be completed with two weeks.

The Chairperson stated that they would be meeting the following day at 9h00.

The meeting was adjourned.