NLC Chairperson appointment process: timeframe

Meeting report

Opening Remarks

The Chairperson indicated that some Members were still in the plenary. The sitting should finish within a few minutes. He requested that the Members online wait ten minutes for the sitting to finish so that colleagues could join the meeting.

 

Mr D Macpherson (DA) stated that it was already 13:10 and that after another ten minutes, it would be 13:20. The meeting had been called for the previous day and the Chairperson had postponed the meeting. He proposed that if there was a quorum, the meeting should proceed.

 

The Chairperson understood the point made by Mr Macpherson but he asked for indulgence. It was an important meeting and he did not want to proceed without their colleagues. He offered a thousand apologies.

 

Five minutes later the remaining Members joined the online platform and the Chairperson opened the meeting, greeting the Committee Members and everyone who was connected on the online platform. He apologised for the delay.

 

The Secretary confirmed the attendance of Members and that it was quorate and representative. He presented the agenda, which was adopted without amendment.

 

Consideration of the Minutes

The minutes of 17, 19 and 25 November 2020 were adopted unanimously and without amendment.

 

24 November 2020: The minutes were adopted unanimously with one amendment. Ms Msane had been in the meeting of 24 November 2020 but had not been recorded as such.

 

Appointment of the NLC Chairperson

The Chairperson had circulated a letter from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition earlier that day. The Chairperson read the letter which dealt with the National Lottery Commission (NLC) chairperson.

The term of office of the NLC chairperson, Prof Nevhutanda, had ended on 30 November 2020. To ensure good functioning of the board, the Minister had appointed one of the members of the board to act as chairperson. Ms Andile Brown, the Minister’s Representative on the board, would become Acting Chairperson, with effect from 1 December 2020.

 

The Chairperson explained that the letter clarified that the previous chairperson had left and there was an Acting Chairperson of the NLC board and it was important to take that information into consideration in determining the process for the appointment of a new chairperson of the board.

 

Summary of events relating to the appointment of an NLC board chairperson

The Chairperson provided a summary of events to date in relation to the appointment process:

-On 16 November 2020, the Committee had received a shortlist of three candidates for the position of board chairperson from the Minister and discussed processes to manage the interviews of those candidates.

-On 17 November 2020, the EFF had written to the Chairperson and indicated that in terms of the Lotteries Act, the Committee was required to shortlist the candidates.

-On seeking legal guidance, the Committee had been informed that shortlisting was the responsibility of the Committee

-Shortly thereafter, Prof Madonsela had withdrawn her application from consideration.

-The Chairperson had requested the Minister to submit the CV’s of the applicants.

- All CVs, 41 in total, had been sent to the Members.

-On 25 November, the Committee concurred that it should undertake the shortlisting process but the nomination process could not be completed by 30 November 2020 as requested by the Minister.

Two views were expressed regarding the nomination process: The DA proposed that the matter was urgent and should be finalised in December 2020. The second view,  that of the ANC, was that the Committee should follow due process and complete the matter in the first quarter of 2021. The continued chairpersonship of Prof Nevhutanda was the main reason put forward for working with speed.

The management committee had met and the Table Committee had provided a recommendation that the Portfolio Committee had to provide an interim report to the House explaining why the timeframe of the Minister of 30 November 2020 could not be accommodated.

-The Table Committee had also recommended that the Committee table its two proposed programmes to the House for consideration, but given the schedule of the House, the matter could only be put to the House at the end of February 2021.

- Given that the National Assembly would have to approve any recommendation to the Minister and given the above scheduling constraint, the management committee recommended that the process be given further consideration, noting the need to allow for time to screen CV’s, complete security checks and the processes necessary for the public to give input.

 

The Chairperson stated that at the current meeting, the Committee would have to consider:

- a timeline for shortlisting and interviews for the position,

- guidelines for the shortlisting process,

- an interim report on the status of the process and the current board chairperson to the National Assembly.

 

He suggested that the Committee could look at whether it was necessary to get everything done by the end of December. A letter would have to be sent to Parliament indicating the way forward after the end of December.

 

The Secretary added that there was an interim report that had to be adopted by the Committee once decisions had been made about the process.

 

Mr M Cuthbert (DA) stated that he had several issues to raise. Firstly, the DA rejected the appointment of Ms Brown as the caretaker chairperson. She was part of the same board that had allowed looting to continue unabated, despite being the Minister’s representative. If she had acted to disclose what was going on, that would have been a different story. She was also subject to charges he had laid in July 2020 for which he was awaiting a decision on those charges from the regional public prosecutor. What the Committee was trying to do was to restore the credibility of an institution that had quite literally gone down the drain and where public trust had been destroyed. Her appointment was ill-advised. In this case innocent until proven guilty was not relevant as one had to consider the poor who relied on the monies of the NLC.

 

He was also concerned because the letter did not give a timeline for how long she would serve. She could serve indefinitely if colleagues on the Committee decided to kick the process into touch any further.

 

He noted Mr October, Director-General, Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (dtic), was on the platform. The existing members of the Board were a major concern. Was Prof Nevhutanda still an ordinary member of the board? And what would the implications be of that?

 

Addressing the Chairperson, Mr Cuthbert expressed his concern that meetings had been repeatedly postponed so that there was not enough time for the matter to be finalised in the current year. It was a deliberate attempt by the “so-called management committee that was actually the ANC caucus” to delay the process of appointing someone fit for purpose for that particular position.

 

Mr Cuthbert also noted that there had been not been a substantive response to a DA proposal regarding the process of shortlisting and the criteria that needed to be considered when shortlisting. The Chairperson had deliberately delayed the process. Members could delay their holiday plans and he had written a letter to each Member of the Committee in that regard. The Committee was doing the public an injustice by not resolving the matter before the end of December.

 

Mr D Macpherson (DA) stated that everyone on the Committee knew that it was not within the ambit of the Committee to appoint an acting chairperson but the right of Minister, which he had exercised, but he believed that the Committee should express its extreme dismay at how the Minister had exercised that right. He had appointed someone who had serious question marks hanging over her head, and had, by all accounts, been complicit with the NLC and had no ability to speak out in the face of wrongdoing. That should concern the Committee, extremely. The Minister had not sought to remove the decline and rot from the NLC; he had rubbed dirt into the wound of the NLC. It would lead only to more misery and decline. It was the Minister’s right, but he would be held accountable for what took place at the NLC between then and when the appointment of a new Chairperson took place.

 

He noted that when the issue had begun in 2019 and 2020 the Minister had failed as he had refused to take any responsibility or decisive action. He had allowed them (the board members) all to stay in their jobs. He had not fired the board, and despite repeated requests, he had found every excuse not to do so despite the compelling evidence before the Committee. Mr Macpherson was dismayed at the lack of willingness by the Minister to remedy the situation. On the process going forward, there were two options: “Fold our hands and go on holiday and roll out our beach towels and sip pina coladas while the sun sets; Roll up our sleeves, get ourselves on a plane to Cape Town and start the process of shortlisting candidates.” The latter should be the priority of every Member of the Committee and to work as long as possible.

 

He pointed out that the failure or success of the NLC rested single-handedly on the decision that would be made that day. He urged all Members to prepare for some hard work. It was not something that they had not done before. The Members should justify the salaries the public paid them and restore integrity of the NLC.

 

Mr F Mulder (FF+) stated that the FF+ was uncomfortable with the unfortunate appointment of Ms Brown as she had served on the same board in which many things had gone wrong up to that point. He asked that the position of the FF+ be noted. The FF+ rejected the appointment and expressed the view that the matter should be attended to as soon as possible. He would see what was in line for the programme, but the FF+ would have preferred to see the current board ended.

 

Ms J Hermans (ANC) thanked the Chairperson for the briefing. She was not surprised that the Minister’s pick was not supported by the Opposition, but the ANC had faith in the Minister who had applied his mind and appointed the best person. She knew that the NLC was not without its challenges, but she knew it had been reporting to the Committee and there had been consequence management, so the ANC supported the appointment by the Minister.

 

Ms T Mantashe (ANC) said that the NLC was an entity that had given clean audits over time. Just like any other entity, it had its problems but she did not know what the hullabaloo was about as the irregularities identified by the Minister were under investigation. The ANC supported the Minister in the naming of the acting chairperson. The Opposition had rejected a proposal that Prof Nevhutanda should continue and so the Minister had appointed someone else, but they were still crying. She did not know what rot they were talking about because it was an organisation led by a woman and one that had been given a clean audit over time. Irregularities happened in all entities so they should not confuse SA.

 

Mr S Mbuyane (ANC) was disturbed to be discussing the board in the meeting. If people wanted to discuss the board, the members of the board should be called to a meeting – the board reported to this Portfolio Committee. It was a serious problem for him that the Committee was discussing things that were not even on the agenda. The DA could reject the appointment, but it was not for the Committee to discuss what happened between the board and the Department (dtic). The Committee was not going to start such discussions then. Members should be relaxing.

 

He pointed out that the same results would transpire whether the process went ahead that year or the following year as the recommendation had to journey through the National Assembly which was adjourning that coming Friday. Mr Macpherson just wanted to accommodate a friend. The previous time, the Committee had been unable to agree. He proposed that the Committee go back to the proposal, not to a discussion of the Board.

 

Mr Macpherson added a point that he had forgotten to make. In a statement to the media, the NLC had said that it was going to find an appropriate way to thank Prof Nevhutanda. The Committee should make it clear that no money could be spent on a farewell function – not a single cent.

 

He reminded the Committee that it was only the DA and smaller parties who had objected to the extension of Prof Nevhutanda’s term of office. It was Ms Mantashe who had said that Prof Nevhutanda should be appointed for a further three months. Committee Members had short-term memories. The DA had never interfered in the Minister’s role.

 

Mr Macpherson said that the malfeasance had dragged on for far too long for Members to go home and relax. For Members to just go and sit at home while that continued would be a complete abrogation of their responsibilities to the electorate in SA, but, more so, the poorest of the poor who relied on NGOs supported by the NLC, and yet the ANC Members were happy to see them languishing. The Committee should make no mistake that should Members choose not to proceed with the matter, the poorest of the poor would be hardest hit. The DA would stand with the poorest, even though the ANC claimed the poorest of the poor as its constituency.

 

Mr Cuthbert said that Mr Macpherson had expressed the situation well.

 

He had a question that he wished to raise with the Chairperson. Ms Mantashe had shared a document that slighted the Minister. Did she disagree with Ms Hermans on the Minister because Ms Hermans was gushing all over about the Minister? Could Ms Mantashe clarify the source of the document?

 

Ms Mantashe requested that the Committee go back to the agenda.

 

The Chairperson said that the last part of Mr Cuthbert’s request was unfortunate as it would be unfortunate if the Committee departed from the agenda to engage in mudslinging. It was a waste of time and energy. There were other important issues to be addressed. Issues raised in the mass media and other communication should not be issues that the Committee had to sort out. The Committee was looking at the process for the appointment of the chairperson.

 

He proposed that the secretariat take the Committee through the process so that, even if the Committee did not agree on the current issues, the Committee could engage in a discussion on the matter.

 

Mr Mbuyane repeated his proposal of getting back to the document and looking at the process going forward.

 

Presentation of procedural document on appointment of the Chairperson of the NLC

Proposal of process and timelines

The Secretary read the highlights from a document previously sent to Members relating to procedures and, specifically, the timelines:

 

The Committee:

- needed to consider and adopt guidelines for accepting CVs.

- should determine timelines for the duration of the shortlisting process – it was suggested that shortlisting take place on 26 and 27 January 2021.

 

The administrative process post-shortlisting would include contacting the short-listed candidates to determine whether they accepted the nominations. The secretariat would then communicate with them throughout the process and make the necessary logistical arrangements for the short-listed candidates to attend interviews. The qualifications of short-listed candidates would be pre-screened and vetted by the security services.

 

Once shortlisting had been completed, the CVs would be published on all social media, so that members of the public could submit comments by 15 February 2021. Issues or concerns raised by the public would be summarised by the secretariat and submitted to the Members of the Committee for consideration during the interviews.

 

The Interviews would be held on 23 February 2021 and the Committee would meet in committee that morning to determine the questions to be put to candidates. The Committee would deliberate on and score candidates on 24 February 2021. The Committee would consider the draft report prepared by the secretariate on 3 March 2021 and send it to the National Assembly for consideration.

 

Ms Hermans proposed adoption of the procedural document but asked that the Committee agree to be flexible and to move dates up if that became possible.

 

Ms Mantashe supported Ms Hermans. The programme for the following year gave enough time for Members to make up their minds and it would fit into the programme of Parliament.

 

Ms T Msane (EFF) said that the presentation had been too quick and she had not captured the first two dates in December. Were they feasible?

 

The Secretary explained that the December date referred to the current meeting to take a decision on the timeframes.

 

Mr Macpherson stated that the DA would not support the recommendation. It was absolutely clear that the Committee should begin the following week and the DA would inform the constituents of Committee Members about how little they cared about their work and about the poor. The DA rejected the report and would reject it in Parliament.

 

Mr Cuthbert requested that it be minuted that Mr Macpherson and Mr Cuthbert were against the delay in the process.

 

The Chairperson asked if he was saying that the Chairperson had delayed the process and that was why the DA was voting against the report.

 

Mr Cuthbert stated that the Chairperson had delayed the process and had to accept responsibility for that.

 

The Chairperson explained that he had to ask for clarity as English was his second language, but it was fine.

 

Ms Mantashe said that the ANC Members were not going to come to the platform to grandstand and score points, when the DA was pretending they cared about the poor. They all knew that the DA did not care about the poor. The ANC was going to do its work very well with no errors.

 

Mr Mulder said the FF+ also felt frustrated with all of the delays in the process but it did consider the busy programme. The FF+ objected to the delay in the process and would keep a close eye on further progress.

 

The Chairperson stated that the Committee could proceed as the other option was not feasible.

 

The Secretary requested a vote for the sake of the minutes. He had recorded that Ms Hermans moved and Ms Mantashe seconded the proposal.  

 

The result of the vote was as follows:

ANC - 6 in favour

DA – 2 against

EFF – 1 abstention

FF+ - 1 against

ACDP -1 abstention

 

Resolution: The Committee agreed to the timelines relating to the process for the appointment of the chairperson of the NLC board, as contained in the report. The motion was passed with six votes in favour, three against and two abstentions.

 

The Secretary noted that the document included the criteria for the shortlisting.

 

The Chairperson stated that it had been agreed that the timeframe and criteria had been approved and the processes could continue.

 

Mr Cuthbert stated that the Secretary was wrong and that the Committee had not yet considered the criteria. The vote was on the timelines, not the criteria. The Committee had also not addressed the criteria that he had put forward in a letter addressed to the Chairperson. Things should not be added in after the fact. That was a dangerous game.

 

The Chairperson reassured Mr Cuthbert that there would be consultation on each step. Process-wise, the Committee would engage at every step of the way as had been done in the past.

 

The Secretary stated that he would put up the criteria that had previously been presented to the Committee.

 

Ms Msane stated that the agreement was in relation to the timeline. It was not an agreement on the criteria. A different platform or time would be required for determining the criteria. Developing the criteria would not be a problem because the Act stated who was fit to be a chairperson.  She wanted the Committee to be clear on the fact that the agreement was in relation to the timelines only.

 

Ms Hermans asked for clarity. Was Ms Msane a full Member of the Committee or an Alternate Member? Did that not affect the voting status?

 

The Secretary explained that an Alternate Member replaced the full Member if that Member were absent. Ms Msane’s vote would count as Ms Y Yako (EFF) was absent.

 

The Secretary agreed that Mr Cuthbert and Ms Msane were correct in their understanding of the vote. The Committee had to consider the criteria and Mr Cuthbert had submitted a proposal in that regard.

 

The Chairperson agreed that the Committee had approved the timelines.

 

Ms Hermans noted that it stated on page 5 that the applicant had to be a SA citizen. She requested the ID numbers of the candidates as they had been redacted in the documentation circulated to Members. Members would check that the candidates were SA citizens.

 

The Chairperson noted that Members were going into detail.  He added that there were issues that would have to be engaged upon at every step of the process. He requested the Secretary to read out the criteria.

 

Proposed criteria for appointment of Chairperson of the NLC

Possible criteria for the screening of CV’s – the Secretary stated that the secretariat had changed the criteria in accordance with the previous discussions by Members of the Committee.

 

-Have the specific skills and practices to lead the board in an objective manner, have the ability to show restraint, be patient and available, have the knowledge  or experience with regard to matters connected with the functions of the board, is reliable;

-Experience in chairing meetings of strong individuals; must be able to chair in accordance with the generally agreed rules of meetings;

-The ability to lead the development of strategy and give strategic direction; strategize and evaluate strategic plans of management and implementation thereof;

-Knowledge and experience of the principles of corporate governance as contained in the King’s Report and Companies Act;

-Good standing in community with a history of moral, ethical leadership and impartiality, putting the interests of others first;

-The necessary skills to analyse reports; prepare reports to the Committee on the NLC;

-History of openness and transparency and an understanding of Batho Pele principle;

-Experience in working with funds and large budgets and a clear understanding of the Public Finance Management Act;

-Experience in the appointment and supervision of staff, development and evaluation of senior staff evaluation criteria;

-Experience in holding senior management accountable;

-Good understanding of delegations and what responsibilities should be delegated to the Commissioner;

-Experience in policy development and implementation and understanding of the NLC policies;

-Understanding of the social impact of the NLC;

-Have leadership qualities;

-Be the face of the NLC;

-Membership of other boards must be evaluated.

 

Mr Cuthbert requested an opportunity to present his criteria. He assumed that the Secretary’s criteria had been intended for the shortlisted candidates attending an interview. The criteria did not allow for the screening of candidates from their CVs. Not much in the Act allowed for hard facts, such as education level, but the parliamentary legal advisor had stated that the Committee could develop its own requirements. The Committee did not have to stick to the secretariat’s references to the Act as if it were the gospel as it was an interpretation.

 

The Chairperson said that it would be important to receive contributions to the proposed criteria. He had told Mr Cuthbert that the Committee would be dealing with the criteria and any contributions he had could be made at that point. He had said that Mr Cuthbert could add his contributions when they got to that issue and engaged with it. He pointed out that the Committee was now at that point and he hoped that Members of the Committee would add or amend the presented criteria.

 

Ms Msane stated that the criteria previously proposed were not for shortlisting but for dealing with the three selected candidates. She recommended that instead of going through each political party’s suggestions at the meeting, and because the timeframe now allowed it, the Committee should give Members time to go away and adjust the contributions to accommodate shortlisting and the Portfolio Committee  could come back to discuss the proposals.

 

Ms Hermans said that she had no intention of looking at the DA’s correspondence because it was not sent out as part of the documentation of the meeting. She agreed that all political parties should be given time to make inputs on further processes.

 

Mr Mbuyane said that it was unfortunate that political parties had not been told that they should come up with criteria. It could not be correct to discuss those matters in the meeting. If need be, political parties should be given time. He supported not discussing the DA input.

 

The Chairperson requested the Secretary to take the matter forward.

 

The Secretary asked the Chairperson whether, in the light of the proposals, the Committee was proceeding.

 

Mr Cuthbert said that he was not one to follow the feelings of Ms Hermans and her personal whims. He had followed the proper process. He had written to the Chairperson …

 

Ms Msane called for a point of order.

 

Members spoke over one another.

 

The Chairperson told Mr Cuthbert not to be a bully.

 

Ms Msane said that Mr Cuthbert had used unparliamentary languages when he called Ms Hermans “a wimp”.

 

Mr Cuthbert objected to Ms Msane’s understanding of the word “whim”.

 

Ms Msane said she would not listen to Mr Cuthbert as he was bullying everyone to follow his command. It was not right to call people “wimps”. She was not debating with him because he was bullying and had no right to call people “wimps”. The Chairperson should take Mr Cuthbert out of the meeting.

 

Mr Cuthbert called for a point of order.

 

The Chairperson told Mr Cuthbert that he had to acknowledge that he had used a word that was unparliamentary.

 

Mr Cuthbert repeated that he had said “whim”, not “wimp”. “Whim” meant the personal feelings of another Member. There was nothing wrong with saying whim.

 

The Chairperson stated that, as he had said earlier, it was in English and it was pathetic to continue to use that kind of communication that undermined other Members of the Committee.

 

Ms Mantashe requested that Mr Cuthbert withdraw the word.

 

The Chairperson stated that Mr Cuthbert was giving two interpretations of the same thing. If he intended to say whim …

 

Ms Mantashe repeated that Mr Cuthbert should withdraw.

 

Mr Mbuyane called for a point of order.

 

Mr Mbuyane said that the Chairperson had to rule on the point of order. There was an order on the table about that man calling Members unparliamentary names. The Chairperson should not wait for an explanation. He had to rule and not be bullied by that white man.

 

Mr Cuthbert stated that Mr Mbuyane was being derogatory. He had referred to him as a white man and so implying that his opinion was less credible than anyone else’s.

 

The Chairperson told Mr Cuthbert that the word that he had used was unparliamentary and he must withdraw the unparliamentary word. A point of order had been raised by a Member. He asked Mr Mbuyane not to get to that point where the Committee was unable to communicate properly. Mr Cuthbert had to withdraw.

 

Mr Cuthbert asked the Chairperson to refer to the recording. If it were found that he had said “wimps”, and not “whims”, he would gladly withdraw it in the next meeting because that was not what he had said.

 

The Chairperson stated that the point made by Ms Msane made complete sense and he would go to the recording. He told Mr Cuthbert that it was unfortunate. He suggested to Mr Mbuyane that the Committee Members should not get to that point where they hurl insults. The Committee should pick up on the information that the Secretary was presenting.

 

Mr Cuthbert asked for permission to conclude what he was saying which was that he had followed the correct channels for submitting proposed criteria for shortlisting and the Chairperson had informed him that there would be a space to discuss the matter. The Chairperson had now created a space to discuss the matter and so he wanted to present his points. It was not incumbent on the DA to wait for permission to make a submission. The DA had followed a proactive process and put something forward to make sure that there were credible criteria for shortlisting candidates and that was what the DA had done. When the EFF had submitted a letter, it was read out in the Committee. He had asked to be afforded the same opportunity and it did not seem that he was being afforded the same opportunity.

 

The Chairperson disagreed. He would not go back and discuss process. Mr Cuthbert had been writing letters to him on things that he could raise in the Committee via the agenda.  He added that the EFF letter was not written by the EFF Member in the Committee but by the Chief Whip of the EFF. He had told Mr Cuthbert not to write to him as the Chair but to raise the issues in the Committee. There was space to engage in the Committee and there was space for him to contribute that day. He requested the secretariat to proceed.

 

The Secretary needed guidance. Did he proceed with the document or wait for other political parties to come back with their proposals?

 

The Chairperson stated that Mr Cuthbert’s correspondence was a contribution to the criteria that the Secretary had presented. All parties should be able to discuss the proposals for the criteria at that meeting.

 

The Secretary stated that he would share Mr Cuthbert’s document, based on the Chairperson’s guidance.

 

The Chairperson stated that it was an important issue The Secretary should go through it quickly as it gave an idea but he appealed that no such communication be submitted to the office of the Chairperson. Members could engage in discussion in the Committee meetings.

 

Mr Mbuyane stated that there was a proposal by Ms Msane and seconded by Ms Hermans, supported by him. The Committee could not discuss one party’s proposal. The secretariat had to ask all parties for proposals. The Committee could not have proposals from one party.

 

Ms Mantashe did not think the Committee should go the route proposed by Mr Cuthbert. All parties should be given an opportunity to submit their proposals. She supported Mr Mbuyane. She was not going to …

 

The Chairperson stated that parties should make contributions but on the basis of what he had explained earlier. The letter would not be read. All parties must be allowed to present their contributions.

 

Mr Macpherson stated that people in the Committee had short-term memory loss. They had short memories. The Chairperson had asked parties to make input into the process and to submit a document. It was not the DA’s problem that other parties needed researchers and staff to write their contributions for them and that they had not asked those people to do so yet and then claimed to know nothing about the process. It was disingenuous of the Members and it was equally wrong of the Chairperson to say nothing when he was the person who had asked for the contribution. The DA did not suck the request out its thumb. The Chairperson had asked for the contribution and the DA had contributed. That no one else had done so because their minds were on their beach holidays was not his problem. People should get their act together and do the work that they were elected to do.

 

The Chairperson stated that Mr Macpherson was not telling the truth as he had never called for or requested contributions. He had replied to Mr Cuthbert and told him that the Committee would get to the process. He had not requested input from parties. That had to be accepted so that the Committee could proceed. He suggested that the Members carried on with contributions to the document presented, and not with the new proposal of the DA. What the Secretary had presented was what the Committee would be working on. He asked for further comments.

 

Ms Mantashe said she appreciated what the DA had done in coming up with a document but if Members discussed their input that would be amending the document that the Committee had already adopted. Parties should be given time to submit proposals. They would not accept Mr Macpherson’s insults when he said they wanted to go to the beach. It would be equally painful to Mr Macpherson when she said that he had been on the beach for the past three weeks.

 

Mr Cuthbert asked for clarity. He was confused. The Chairperson was being contradictory. There was a proposal that all parties made contributions but the Chairperson said that the document presented by the Secretary was the one that would be used. Could he make up his mind? The Committee could not do things on the basis of “this is how things are going to happen.” It was a democratic Parliament. The Committee was a debate platform. Could he clarify his remarks?

 

The Chairperson replied that the presentation contained the issue that he had told Mr Cuthbert the Committee would look at when presented in the meeting. In his communication with Mr Cuthbert, he had told him to hold back. The Committee had now got to the point where it was engaging on those issues and parties could comment on, amend or add to the secretariat’s proposal. The reality was that parties had a right to look at what had been presented and process it.

 

The Chairperson continued that the item had been agreed to. The Committee would proceed to the next item on the agenda.

 

Ms Msane said that, in case the DA had amnesia, the document that the DA had sent to the Chairperson was based on an incorrect process that had been incorrectly done. The DA Members now had an opportunity to correct it to deal with the actual shortlisting process. It gave all parties the opportunity to contribute to the correct process as highlighted by the EFF. The DA could not grandstand. They wanted to go hullabaloo and talk about beaches. Maybe the DA should go and read the Act?

 

Mr Mbuyane … almost inaudible.

 

An argument ensued because some Members could not hear Mr Mbuyane.

 

Mr Mbuyane suggested that the Chairperson close the meeting and join the parliamentary meeting as the time had been exceeded and there would be no agreement as some Members were just grandstanding. People had to understand that it was a democratic SA and was different from the previous “rule”.

 

The Chairperson indicated that he was moving on to the next item.

 

Consideration of the interim report to the House

The Secretary stated that the Committee had to consider the interim report indicating to the House that it could not complete its report by 30 November 2020, as advised by the Table staff. It was a standard report that was provided when a Committee was unable to meet a deadline. It was purely for information for the House of Assembly.

 

He swiftly referred to the highlights of the report, concluding:

During its deliberations held on 24 and 25 November 2020, the Committee concurred with the opinion that it was the Committee that should shortlist persons so nominated by the interested parties and make recommendations to the Minister in relation thereto.

Informed by the opinion, the Committee concluded that it was not in a position to accommodate the request from the Minister to complete the process of nominating a candidate for position of Chairperson of the board of the NLC by 30 November 2020 and undertakes to conclude the process in the first term of 2021.

 

The Committee agreed unanimously to adopt the report.

 

Ms Msane stated that she had not received the document.

 

There was a disagreement between Members regarding disrespectful terms used to describe others.

 

The Chairperson asked Members not to abuse the online chat.

 

Committee Programme

The Secretary presented the dates and meetings/activities for the first term, including the dates for processes related to the appointment of the chairperson of the NLC.

 

The Chairperson stated that the proposed programme would be subject to change.

 

The Committee Programme was adopted unanimously.

 

General

The Chairperson stated that the Committee had sense of how the issues would be managed procedurally by the secretariat. Political parties could contribute but it would be managed on the administrative side.

 

The Secretary was concerned about the finalised list of criteria that should be made available to Members as they had to use it in the shortlisting process.

 

The Chairperson asked for a suggestion from the secretariat as to how to proceed.

 

The Secretary suggested the Committee meet virtually the following day, 3 December 2020, between 13:00 and 14:00 to discuss and agree upon the criteria.

 

The Chairperson agreed. It would be a one hour meeting the following day.

 

The Secretary invited other parties to submit input concerning the criteria prior to the meeting.

 

Concluding remarks

The Chairperson said it would be helpful if the Committee assisted the Chairperson to have proper and orderly discussion, particularly Mr Cuthbert and Macpherson. Ms Msane should not be tempted. Mr Cuthbert had said that he, the Chairperson, should look at the recording of the meeting but he would look at the online chat as it went a long way in showing what had to be discouraged. It was unacceptable.

 

The next meeting was on 3 December 2020.

 

There being no further matters, the Chairperson adjourned the meeting.