National Lotteries Commission Chairperson Vacancy: deliberations

This premium content has been made freely available

Trade, Industry and Competition

10 March 2021
Chairperson: Mr D Nkosi (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry met to deliberate on the candidates that were interviewed the previous day for the position of National Lotteries Commission Chairperson.

The purpose of the meeting was not to determine the final three names to be presented to the National Assembly but to reduce the short list of eight to a list of between three and five candidates that Members could deliberate upon at their party caucuses the following day.

The meeting debated the procedure for determining the top candidates, bearing in mind the fact that Members had completed a score sheet for each candidate who had been interviewed and that, while the scoring was not decisive, it should not be overlooked. The final scores per candidate were determined by averaging the scores of all Members in a party to a single score per party and then adding all the party scores. Because some Members who were the sole representatives of their parties in the Committee had not attended all interviews, the scores were then divided by the number of parties that had scored a candidate. The top four candidates, in order of aggregate scoring by all parties, were: Mr Terry Tselane, Mr Themba Dlamini, Dr Muthuhandini Madzivhandila, Mr Barney Pityane.

On seeing the results of the scoring, the Committee decided to accept the top four names as those candidates from whom the final three would be considered. Following discussion at the party caucuses the following day, Members would return to the next meeting on Friday with proposals of three candidates for the list of recommendations to be submitted to Parliament and, if approved, presented to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition. The Minister would appoint a Chairperson from the names submitted to him by Parliament.

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed Members to the meeting. The meeting had been set up for Members to deliberate on the candidates who had been interviewed for the position of chairperson of the National Lottery Commission (NLC). He stressed that it was not necessary to take a decision at the meeting. Deliberations were to be finalised at the next meeting of the Committee. He requested Members to take note of the documents handed out by the secretariat.

The agenda was presented and adopted with the deliberation of candidates being the only substantive item.

The Chairperson stated that the matter was very procedural and he would raise procedures frequently. He noted that eight candidates had been interviewed for the post the previous day. At the conclusion of the day’s process, parties would be in a position to discuss the deliberations with their caucuses before a final decision was made on the nominees to be presented to the House.

Briefing by the Committee Secretary

The Committee Secretary spoke to documentation handed out to Members. The file contained comments made by the public during the time that the names of the short-listed candidates were on social media and Parliament had invited comment. Comments had been received from: Corruption Watch, Organisation for Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA), Ms Priscilla McLaughlin.

He explained that the Members could propose candidates for consideration for the post of Chairperson of the NLC. The Committee could determine whether proposals should be accepted from Members or from parties. Once a list of names had been moved for deliberation, the Members could discuss those candidates. The names would be collated to determine how many candidates were in common across the lists of party preferences.

Discussion on process to be followed

The Chairperson stated that he would not ask Members to score on the scoresheets but to engage on their impressions of the day before. Members could express their views on the kind of person they were looking for as chairperson of the NLC.

Mr W Thring (ACDP) asked if the Committee was working towards a list of three or four names.

The Chairperson suggested that, initially, parties should begin by suggesting which of the candidates were suitable for the position. The number was not relevant.

Mr D Macpherson (DA) stated that he had asked the previous day how many candidates should be put forward by each party and the response had been to propose three candidates. Was it now four? Would parties have to motivate their proposals?

The Chairperson suggested that, initially, it should be determined which candidates would be suitable for the position. The number to be debated could change in the same way that the number of candidates to be short-listed had changed from six to eight.

Mr S Mbuyane (ANC) noted that all candidates had been interviewed. He suggested that the scores should be submitted to the administration or the process of the previous day would be nullified. He suggested that the parties present their score cards.

Mr Macpherson agreed with Mr Mbuyane. What was the point of the exercise of the previous day if the scoring and ranking was not relevant? He was also worried that putting more than three names was unhelpful as it did not get the Committee any closer to the three names that it wished to recommend to the Minister. The score given for each candidate had to be made public in any event as the public had a right to know the scores.

Ms N Motaung (ANC) seconded Mr Mbuyane’s proposal to submit scoring sheets and then the political parties should have a caucus about the names that they would propose.

Mr F Mulder (FF+) supported that process but he asked for clean forms as he had written all over his forms and he would like to submit clean forms.

The Chairperson did not think that it was necessary to give numbers as that would not change things as everyone had their record of scoring. Parties could say who the top five were in each party’s list and then the Committee could try to reduce that to a list of three candidates. He suggested a break for each party to determine which five names it wished to put forward. However, he noted that the Committee had to agree to the process and there had to be a record of agreement on the process.

Mr W Cuthbert (DA) asked for clarity. Was the intention that each party would present the scoresheets to the administration and then each party would speak to the top three or four names on its list? He noted that the legal advice previously given to the Committee was that three names should be submitted to the Minister.

The Chairperson explained that of the eight shortlisted candidates, there would be a number selected by each party, perhaps three, and then each party should present its proposals. Once the meeting had discussed the names, parties could take those names to their caucuses and the process could be finalised the day after, Friday. When parties presented the names, that would imply that the Members had scored the candidates. If the names from different parties coincided and there were only three names, parties would just have to consult their principals and on Friday, the Committee could simply agree on the three names.

Mr Mbuyane was concerned that the Chairperson had said that scoring was not important, but it was and the Members had sat there for 11 hours the previous day, scoring candidates. If the forms were not submitted, the activities of the previous day were rendered null and void. He suggested that scoring sheets be handed in to the administration.

The Chairperson accepted Mr Mbuyane’s position.

Mr Macpherson stated that Mr Mbuyane was entirely correct and the scoring sheets had to be submitted as, if anyone wished to take the matter on review, those sheets had to be made available.

The Chairperson suggested a 30-minute break for Members to complete the sheets.

The Committee adjourned and reconvened after the Members had submitted scoring sheets and had caucused.

Discussion on scoresheet

Mr Mbuyane stated that there was a problem handing in the score sheets as he was not sure how some of the questions should be scored. Questions had to be scored out of five but sometimes there were three parts to a question. The Members needed a workshop on how to score. He could give the names in the meantime. The ANC had four names.

The Secretary requested permission for the Researcher to clarify how the scoring worked as it might fit into the process to be discussed by the Committee

The Chairperson responded that the scores were not relevant in the current process but he requested the Committee Researcher to provide an explanation.

The Researcher explained that the score of 1 to 5 per question was not important in respect of the figures per se, but the figures were intended to rank each candidate, i.e. to provide an indication of how well each candidate had done. If a candidate got a 4, that would mean 12 or 13 out of 15 for a three-part question. It was the mark out of 15 that was important. For all the technical questions, the Members should give a total score out of 40. The same applied to other categories.                                                                        

She explained that during the adjournment, she had obtained the scorecards from the following parties: EFF, ACDP and the DA. Where two Members of the DA had scored a candidate, she had averaged their scores by dividing it in two to obtain a single DA score. For candidate one, the scores of Mr Macpherson and Mr Cuthbert were divided but in certain cases where there was only one DA Member interviewing, that Member’s score was taken. She added that in cases where the single Member of a party was not in the interview, she would find the average score by dividing the total score by the number of parties that had interviewed the candidate. So, if only four parties had interviewed a candidate, the total score was divided by four, but where five parties interviewed a candidate, the total score was divided by five. That ensured that no candidate was disadvantaged.

The Chairperson suggested that, in terms of performance, as opposed to the documented scores, the Members could say whether candidates were good or bad. The Secretariat would follow through with the results of the scores. It was not going to be an easy process to get to the final scores.

Mr Thring asked whether the scores of the Members of the ruling party had been averaged in the same way that the DA scores had been averaged to one.

The Researcher explained that the ANC scores had not yet been received but she would be averaging their scores by the number of Members of the party in the Committee.

The Chairperson suggested that the Members discuss the names while the Secretariat dealt with the scores that were at the back of the process.

The Secretary explained that all Members had to submit all score cards for the records and the scores would be averaged as explained and captured.

Mr Z Burns-Ncamashe (ANC) said that the practice of averaging was sometimes for fairness. Where Mr Macpherson was not present, there was an averaging to present an element of fairness and to give the candidate the benefit of the doubt by averaging scores. It was to ensure fairness.

The Chairperson said that the scoring part would be followed up before Friday but, in discussion, Members could talk about the candidates that each party wished to present.

Mr Mbuyane appreciated the clarity provided in respect of the scoring. He said that the ANC had a submission of four names. Number 1: Dr Muthuhandini Madzivhandila.

Mr Macpherson said that the meeting was jumping the gun as he had assumed that the scores would be put up on the screen before names were presented. The scores would be averaged out and then all Members could see how the candidates had fared. He had no idea, for example, of how the ANC had scored the candidates. That was what, he had understood, the secretariat would be putting on the screen.

The Secretary suggested that the ANC hand in their scores and the final scores could then be presented to Members.

The Chairperson announced a short adjournment for the process to take place.

Presentation of scores

The scores were flighted by the Researcher who showed each party’s score for each candidate. She noted that Mr Mulder and Ms Yako had not been present at all interviews. Each party confirmed its scores. The final column showed the average score per candidate. One party was not in the room when Ms Ferguson was interviewed and two parties were absent when Mr Dlamini was interviewed.

Mr Cuthbert asked for the scores to be sorted in order of preference.

The top four candidates were, in order of scoring by all parties: Mr Terry Tselane, Mr Themba Dlamini, Dr Muthuhandini Madzivhandila, Mr Barney Pityana.

Members read the scores on the overhead screen.

The Chairperson noted that the Secretariat had complied with the request to present the scoring.

The Secretary stated that, according to the rules, the results of the scores did not prevent other candidates from being proposed. Members could still propose and motivate other candidates.

Mr Mbuyane proposed that the process of the day had been completed. Parties could take those names to their caucuses.

Mr Macpherson said the meeting had been held purely for the purpose of proposing names. All parties should present names, albeit non-binding, so that the Committee could see where commonalities were and then parties could see where the thinking was and the Committee could head towards three names. Reducing the list was an important part of the process. Members could then prepare for the next meeting.

Mr Mulder asked about the input from the public participation process. New information had been presented that Members had not had the day before and had not been considered or taken into account. What was the formula for dealing with the information received that morning?

The Secretary explained that Members should consider the inputs but it did not mean that a candidate had to be eliminated on the basis of that information. It was simply information received from the public. A Member might decide not to put forward a particular name based on that information. It should be considered additional information that could inform the process.

Mr Burns-Ncamashe said, looking at the results, he did not want the Committee to blow its own trumpet, but there was a saying that numbers did not lie. All eight candidates were scored above average - all were above 60 - which meant that the selection which the Committee had made had, indeed, met the criteria. Sometimes people were very harsh on themselves but he wanted the Committee to acknowledge that the Members’ choice of names for shortlisting had met the requirements for shortlisting. The scores were a quantitative expression of the decisions taken by the Members. That quantitative expression had to be measured against a number of other variables. Those variables would determine the suitability of a candidate beyond reproach. The Members might be influenced by the scores, but as a general principle, the Committee should agree that parties should come up with not more than four candidates for purposes of reducing that number to three on Friday. He thought that it was helpful for him to address the process.

Mr Thring noted that, as Mr Mbuyane had correctly stated, there had been a process of scoring the previous day and that those score sheets should be considered and the meeting had done that and had seen the average of all political parties in terms of their choices of candidates. He agreed that perhaps the top four should be looked at even though it excluded some names that he would have liked to see at the top. It was a fair process and he thought that each party should take the top four names to their caucus on Thursday and that parties returned with proposals for the top three names on Friday. That was his recommendation.

Mr Mbuyane agreed that Mr Thring had clarified the matter. The top four names should be taken to caucus and on Friday the deliberations would result in three name being recommended to the Minister.

Mr Macpherson seconded Mr Mbuyane’s proposal. It was a good way to go forward. The matrix was an accurate reflection of the best four candidates, notwithstanding the contribution of the other candidates. He thought that it was a nice way to move forward.

Mr Mbuyane asked whether he should name four names or whether the Committee would accept the top four candidates on the score sheet.

The Secretary concluded that the proposal, seconded by Mr Macpherson, was to consider the four candidates and to discuss those in caucus and that three names be put forward on Friday. Those three names would be put to the National Assembly for recommendation to the Minister who would then select the Chairperson. That was the process recommended by Parliament. The decision of the Committee was to consider the four candidates at the top of the list and return on Friday to determine the final three names.

Mr Macpherson requested that the scoring matrix be emailed to the Members.

The Secretary agreed to email the document and stated that the Committee would meet on Friday and ask parties to submit the three names it proposed for recommendation to the Minister. If the names coincided, the Committee could move forward with those names. If not, the Members would deliberate on the names and find consensus on the top three.

Ms Yako requested that the process document be submitted to the Members as she wished to present the process with the list of names to her caucus the following day. She requested a document that detailed what had happened during the meeting.

Mr Mbuyane thought that it was a good proposal but said that it was not possible to write minutes and send that out before the Committee had approved the minutes. He suggested that just the scores be sent to Members.

The Secretary stated that the secretariat would compile a one-pager on the scores and the process by which the Committee had arrived at the four names that the Committee was considering. The document would indicate the process but it would not be a long document detailing the entire meeting.

Closing remarks.

The Chairperson asked if there were any further questions or whether there were any further processes that the Committee should attend to in preparation for Friday’s meeting.

Mr Thing asked whether the meeting on Friday would be in-person or whether it would be a virtual meeting.

The Secretary stated that it would be a virtual meeting.

The Chairperson thanked Members for their engagement in the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: