SAIDS A/B: proposed amendments; PanSALB interviews day 1

Meeting report

South African Institute for Drug-free Sport (SAIDS) Amendment Bill: proposed amendments
The Parliamentary Legal Advisor, Adv Aadielah Arnold, went through the A-List of the SAIDS Amendment Bill. The document would be used to print the B-version of the Bill.
 
Clause 1
There was discussion about omitting the definition 'SASCOC' and to substitute the 'the Sports Confederation’ which means the Sports Confederation as defined in section 1 of the National Sport and Recreation Act, 1998.

Adv Arnold noted some confusion by Members about this definition and said the change in the definition was not a compliance issue. She suggested that the Committee apply its mind to this matter.

The Chairperson said most Members were arguing about this same point in the previous day’s meeting. She called on Members to engage with the matter of WADA compliance to eliminate the confusion.

Ms V van Dyk (DA) said while it was not a compliance issue, the definition should be left as is. The Committee should instead focus on being compliant with the technical issues that WADA raised. She asked why changes were made to the definition if not required.

Mr E Mthethwa (EFF) did not have a concern about the definition of Sports Confederation because it was not a serious issue. His challenge was with the definition of Olympics because it excluded the Paralympics.

The Chairperson said this question was relevant but would be discussed later at the appropriate time.

Mr Mthethwa asked if Olympics should not be left out to accommodate LGBTI and Paralympic issues in future.

Adv Arnold replied that referring to Olympics or not was a policy decision. She was not in a position to advise on the content or substance of the matter. There seemed to be some confusion about the SASCOC name but she could only advise on the legality thereof. The Department might be best placed to respond to the question on Paralympics but the definition makes provision for people with disabilities. This matter was not raised as a compliance issue by WADA. The definition in the Principal Act appears to be sufficient. The point was raised as a technical drafting issue and was not raised by any stakeholder.

The Chairperson appealed to Members, the Department and Legal Advisors not to make any changes that were not asked for. She did not want the Bill to be referred back due to non-compliance. The final proposed amendments should be referred to WADA to allow for the adoption of the B version of the Bill. She proposed that no tampering should be allowed on matters that were not referred by WADA to the Department.

Ms Van Dyk agreed with the Chairperson that only matters referred by WADA should be reviewed. She proposed that 'SASCOC' should remain as it was because it was not part of the matters raised.

Ms R Adams (ANC) agreed with the proposal to leave the definition as is.

The Chairperson invited the Department, the Content Advisor and the Researcher to contribute to the discussion if they wished to do so.

Ms Sumaya Khan, DSAC Deputy Director-General (DDG): Recreation Development and Sport Promotion, thanked all role players who had played a part in finalising the Bill. She agreed that no tampering should be allowed that would detract from the main purpose of presenting a compliant Bill. The Sports Federation definition includes a list of organisations. She suggested for the sake of inclusivity that under Olympic national federations a collective name of Paralympic national organisations could be added.

Mr Mthethwa said it was not about inserting new ideas but to allow for inclusivity in the future, taking the political mandate into consideration to address past wrongs, including the exclusion of people with disabilities and women. He suggested that it should just be referred to as national federations instead of Olympic national federations so that within the SASCOC umbrella, the organisation should be allowed to construct itself according to the needs at the time. This would prevent returning to make amendments to address issues in future, for example, on women in sport.

Ms V Van Dyk (DA) said Paralympics is included in the definition of 'sports confederation'. The definition already includes people with disabilities. SASCOC is in the process of changing its name. She suggested that the additional component of the name should be added with its name change.

The Chairperson said Members needed to agree on what should be included in the Bill. South Africa nearly did not have its flag flown due to non-compliance and the reasons for non-compliance were given. It was agreed that SASCOC changing its name would unleash other challenges. She urged the Department to leave 'SASCOC' as it is. She urged all role players not to tamper with anything that was not requested by WADA. The legal advisors must adhere to the mandate of making the Bill compliant. She agreed that the views of stakeholders and that of the Committee are also important but she did not want new errors to be pointed out by WADA after all the good work that had been done.

Ms Fiona Clayton, Committee Content Advisor, sought Adv Arnold’s opinion if changing 'SASCOC' to 'the Sports Confederation' was to avoid a future name change requiring the legislation to be amended in future.

Mr D Joseph (DA) requested the Department to explain the word ‘confederation’ which he understood to mean an umbrella body that embraces all organisations. Could DSAC confirm if it meant inclusivity?

Adv Arnold explained that changing 'SASCOC' to 'the Sports Confederation' is legally sound because it provides for future amendments to its name. The opposing argument is that if SASCOC remains unchanged, it would be the safer route because it was not raised by WADA. Both options are legally sound but final input would be solicited from the Department and SAIDS.

The DDG said after reviewing 'the sports confederation' definition in the Bill, she concluded that it was all representing the same people. The Principal Act clearly states that ‘sports confederation' means a confederation recognised by the Minister in terms of section 2 of the Act which is representative of bodies including the Olympic national confederation. The section is all encompassing on development of high-performance sports and all sporting codes, including people with disabilities and women.

The Chairperson sought confirmation on what the majority had agreed to.

Adv Arnold stated that there is agreement that the Bill would refer to the ‘the sports confederation' as contemplated in section 2 of the National Sports and Recreation Act’.

Adv Arnold moved on to explain the insertion in section 1(2) stipulates that ‘any reasonable interpretation which is consistent with the Code must be preferred over any alternative interpretation which is inconsistent with the Code". This section would hopefully avoid any future situation of non-compliance. Section 1(2)
was not suggested by WADA but it was done to avert a situation which had been the point of discussion.

The Chairperson said that the decision had just been made to amend the issues raised by WADA and stakeholders. She requested the legal team motivate for any changes that were not presented by WADA. The Committee was relying on the legal team to keep Members updated on the changes especially the section 17 amendments.

Ms Van Dyk agreed saying the exercise was done to comply with the WADA Code which is the guiding code.

Mr M Zondi (ANC) said the Bill was being amended because WADA said it was not compliant. He was concerned that the extra changes would open a can of worms and that WADA might challenge some of the changes. He agreed that the Committee should focus on the requirements raised by WADA.

The Chairperson reminded Members of the candidates that were waiting to be interviewed.

Mr Mthethwa said the Bill was meant to govern sports in South Africa and not WADA. The opportunity for a better future for sports in our country should not be lost because there are costs involved. People take advantage of whatever the law is silent on because it is subject to anyone’s interpretation. He wanted to avoid having to make changes in future when the Committee now had the opportunity to do so.

The Chairperson said the Committee would still be operating until 22 May 2024 if there was a need for further engagements on the Bill. Although South African sports are not governed by WADA, the organisations are affiliated with international bodies and therefore the WADA time frames must be adhered to. No contribution is being undermined but views other than what WADA raised should not affect the outcome of the Bill. She called on SAIDS to comment.

Ms Wafeekah Begg-Jassiem, SAIDS Senior Legal Manager, said the draft amendment to address 'the sports confederation' definition was included in the document provided to WADA the previous week. WADA provided feedback on 12 March 2024 and did not flag any issue on this amendment. She hoped that feedback would ease Members' minds. SAIDS viewed the insertion by Adv Arnold in Section 1(2) on interpretation being consistent with the WADA Code, as clever.

Adv Arnold repeated that the purpose of section 1(2) was to avoid a situation that the Committee was currently engaged in and to clarify that the Act is aligned with the WADA Code – bearing in mind that the Code and SAIDS rules change over time.

Mr Mthethwa did not have any concern about clause 1(2) as it ensures accountability and clarifies matters.

Ms Van Dyk accepted the explanation and said it made sense as the Code is continually changing.

Adv Arnold indicated that Ms Begg-Jassiem would submit the final working document to WADA in the last attempt to confirm the amendments.

Mrs Begg-Jassiem confirmed that submitting the final working document would be in the best interest of all parties concerned. SAIDS would prefer that WADA not send any amendments while the Bill is in the NCOP.

Clause 2
This clarified that ‘entity’ refers to a public entity in terms of the Public Finance Management Act.

Clause 3
Amendment of section 10 of the Principal Act by substituting paragraph (d) with 'to promote and ensure the adoption of a centralised doping control programme, focusing on implementing intelligent testing' and to substitute SASCOC with ‘the sports confederation’.

Clause 4
Amendment of section 11 of the Principal Act by substituting paragraph (m) with 'require athletes who have been included in the testing pools, provide accurate information on their current whereabouts' and to substitute ‘therapeutic use exemption committee’ with ‘Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee’.

Clause 6
Amendment of section 17 of the Principal Act by changing the title to ‘Results Management’, and making provisions for procedural and anti-doping rules of SAIDS to be aligned to the principles of the Code and relevant international standards; establishing a first instance hearing which has jurisdiction in the first instance to hear and determine whether an athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and to impose consequences if applicable; and establishing the ‘Anti-doping Appeal Board appointed by the Minister’.

The Chairperson noted that section 17 was highlighted as being non-compliant especially in the public submissions. She asked if Members were in agreement with the written version of the Bill.

Ms D Sibiya (ANC) noted that the Bill was referring to nine members constituting the board. She asked how long after a board member had died will the person be replaced.

Mr Mthethwa asked for the duration of the term of the board. He questioned the Minister’s power to appoint board members which could be open to abuse. He suggested that the Committee should make recommendations which the Minister approve.

Mr Zondi said there should not be a problem if the Minister meets the legal framework requirements of the board.

Ms Adams asked if the board member appointment would involve advertisements and an interview process.

Adv Arnold replied that section 17 provides for the appointment of board members for a period of five years. On the involvement of other bodies in the appointment process, WADA emphasised the independence of the Appeal Board as a requirement. This is also a compliance issue about the SAIDS rules being aligned with the Code. WADA advised against including administrative procedures in the Bill and to rather include it in the SAIDS rules. It will be easier to amend the SAIDS rules than amending the legislation. The terms and conditions of the Appeals Board would guard against the abuse of power by the Minister.

The Chairperson obtained confirmation from Members that the Bill would be forwarded to the Department who must submit it to WADA.

Clause 7
Amendment of section 17 of Principal Act as a result of consequential amendments, including use of ‘the Sports Confederation’ instead of SASCOC.

The Chairperson said Members were arguing about this the previous day and asked if Members were satisfied with omitting SASCOC.

Mr Mthethwa said it was a matter of consistency but he was satisfied with the amendment.

Adv Arnold replied that the definition of 'sports confederation' refers to confederation recognised by the Minister and as contemplated in section 2 of the National Sport and Recreation Act', as representative of sport and recreation bodies including the Olympic national federation.

Clauses 8, 9 and 10
Consequential and technical amendments to the definitions and interpretation of the Principal Act.

Long Title
Substitutes the long title in the Principal Act with the amended long title.

The Chairperson obtained confirmation from Members that the A-List was ready to be sent to the legal team to be incorporated into the B version of the Bill. She thanked Adv Arnold and her team for their good work.

Break

Pan South African Language Board (PanSALB) interviews
The Chairperson noted that in December 2023, the Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture called on nominations to serve on PanSALB as provided for by Act 59 of 1995. Thereafter, a Committee selection process identified 25 nominees for interviews so it can make recommendations to the Minister. Section 5 of the Act provides for a minimum of 11 and maximum of 15 members to constitute the board. To this end, the Committee would shortlist no more than 20 candidates for recommendation to the Minister. The Act dictates that nominees must possess an array of expertise including language, legal, human resources and financial skills. These skills are necessary to enable PanSALB to obtain its strategic objectives of promoting multilingualism and social cohesion. She trusted that the best candidates would be found amongst the shortlisted nominees.

At the start of each interview, the Chairperson welcomed the candidate. At the end of the interview, she advised each candidate that based on the scoring done by Members, the Committee recommendations would be forwarded to the Minister and the Ministry would notify candidates of the outcome.

The Chairperson apologised to the first candidate for making himself available since the start of the meeting when the Committee was dealing with the Bill. She trusted that he understood the importance of the SAIDS Amendment Bill which nearly put South Africa in a crisis of not being able to fly its flag at international sporting events.

Interview 1: Dr Cedric Vuyo Dyanti
Mr Mthethwa wanted to gauge the candidate's understanding of linguistic human rights and its linkage to linguistic diversity and multilingualism. He asked why it would be important for the candidate to argue for multilingualism in South Africa.

The Chairperson asked Dr Dyanti to introduce himself as she had forgotten to do this.

Dr Dyanti was experiencing connectivity problems while responding so the Chairperson directed Members to refer to his CV for more detail. Thereafter she asked Mr Zondi to proceed with his question.

Mr Zondi asked how a previously disadvantaged child from Kwanongoma was going to benefit from the programmes of PanSALB, given the cultural diversity of the country.

Ms Adams stated that section 6(2) of the Constitution acknowledges the diminishing use and status of indigenous languages as a challenge which requires the state to take practical and positive measures to elevate the status and advance the use of these languages. She asked for his opinion on this section and the specific measures that he would be putting in place to ensure that the state, including provinces and municipalities, comply fully with these constitutional requirements.

The Chairperson made the point that the response was too detailed as the time is limited to 45 minutes per candidate. She invited other Members to proceed.

Ms V van Dyk stated that section 6(4) of the Constitution empowers national and provincial government to regulate and monitor their use of official languages and ensure that all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and be treated equitably. She asked what legal and operational measures he would put in place to give effect to this section.

Mr B Luthuli (IFP) asked what role the language awareness programme could play in the promotion of multilingualism and the development of sign language.

Mr Mthethwa referred to the diminishing status of languages. He noted that the candidate had previously served on the PanSALB board. He asked if the candidate was familiar with the strategic plan of the organisation and what areas in the strategic plan would he focus on to promote the equality of languages.
Ms Van Dyk noted that the candidate had listed various publications on his CV but his name does not appear as one of the authors. She wanted to confirm if any of the listed papers were published by the candidate.

The Chairperson thanked Dr Dyanti and noted that he was the first of 25 candidates. Once the interviews were completed, the information would be made available through the Ministry.

Discussion
The Chairperson sought the views of Members on the 45-minute time limit set per candidate.

Mr Mthethwa agreed that a 45 minutes interview was sufficient. More time could be set aside for discussion afterwards to consolidate the thoughts of the group and not score people unfairly.

Mr D Joseph (DA) said it would not be wise to allow candidates more time and not limit their responses. The time must be managed to get through the five questions. The follow up questions should not exceed three minutes. The Chairperson should guide the process and intervene when it was required.

Ms Adams suggested that candidates be informed upfront about the 45-minute time limit.

Mr Zondi said there are always hiccups with the first interview. He encouraged Members to allow the interviews to flow. The process could take less than 45 minutes depending on the manner in which candidates responded. The context and not only the time was important.

Interview 2: Dr Dolly Dlavane
The Chairperson stated that the candidate would be asked five questions and a possible number of follow-up questions and 45 minutes were allocated for the interview. She requested that she introduce herself.

Mr Mthethwa asked about the three arguments expanded by the national language policy framework that enforces the Use of Official Languages Act of 2012 on language use. He asked if she had identified any gaps between language policy and implementation.

Ms Van Dyk stated that section 6(4) of the Constitution empowers national and provincial government to regulate and monitor their use of official languages and ensure that all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and be treated equitably. She asked what legal and operational measures she would put in place to give effect to this section.

Ms D Sibiya (ANC) asked what legal systems she would put in place to ensure that fraud and corruption do not occur in the organisation, if appointed to the PanSALB board.

Mr Mthethwa said the candidate seemed to have an advantage because she is familiar with the work of PanSALB. He referred to language laboratories that existed in the apartheid era and asked for her opinion if it had contributed to the development of languages and if it could be improved.

Interview 3: Dr Dakalo Takalani
The candidate introduced herself in her home language, Tshivenda.

The Chairperson advised her that the interpreter was not in the room and should be allowed to join the session. On his return, the interpreter apologised for being late. The Chairperson accepted his apology but reprimanded him for not returning on time.

The candidate proceeded responding in Tshivenda which the interpreter translated into English.

Ms Adams asked about the key arguments expanded by the national language policy framework and enforced by the Use of Official Languages Act of 2012 on language use. She asked if the candidate had identified any gaps between language policy and implementation.

Ms Van Dyk sought clarity on Dr Takalani’s Honours studies before she embarked on her Master’s degree. She stated that section 6(4) of the Constitution empowers national and provincial government to regulate and monitor their use of official languages and ensure that all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and be treated equitably. She asked what legal and operational measures she would put in place to give effect to this section.

Ms Sibiya stated that section 6(2) of the Constitution acknowledges the diminishing use and status of indigenous languages as a challenge which requires the state to take practical and positive measures to elevate the status and advance the use of these languages. She asked for the candidate’s opinion on this matter and enquired about the specific measures that she would put in place to ensure that the state, including provinces and municipalities, comply fully with these constitutional requirements.

Ms V Malomane (ANC) noted from the candidate’s CV that Tshivenda is her home language and that she is able to speak other languages including English, Xitsonga, Sotho and Setswana. Following the publication of the language statistics by StatsSA for the 2022 census, PanSALB had expressed concerns about the sharp decline in the use of South African Sign Language. Additionally, PanSALB highlighted the significant decrease in the number of IsiNdebele learners in schools and noted that the 2022 matric class marked the first class without registering a single learner to learn siSwati in the Gauteng Province. The proportion of English, Xitsonga and Tshivenda speakers have remained relatively stable. However, the statistics showed a decrease in the number of Afrikaans and isiXhosa speakers and a decline in the use of Khoi and San languages. She asked for the candidate’s analysis of this situation and enquired about the measures she would put in place to strengthen or ensure the growth of indigenous languages, if appointed.

Mr Mthethwa remarked that considering the candidate is adamant about speaking her home language, he wanted to know what she would do in instances where certain terms cannot be translated into her own language such as the word 'statistics'. He asked if it was achievable to develop terms that were not yet available in indigenous languages.

The Chairperson stated that Members present all spoke different home languages but have all been communicating in English on this platform. She was of the opinion that the problem discussed is being created at home.

Interview 4: Dr Nomakhosazana Rasana
The Chairperson invited the candidate to briefly tell the Committee about herself. The candidate started responding in isiXhosa and then switched to English. An interpreter translated the isiXhosa response into English.

Mr Mthethwa asked why it would be important for the candidate to argue for linguistic diversity and multilingualism.

Mr Zondi stated that a stronger board meant a stronger organisation. The current structure has resulted in an organisation focused on its core mandate. What steps would she take, if appointed, to ensure human resources development is prioritised to ensure the functioning and stability of PanSALB remains intact.

The Chairperson announced the end of the interview after noting that the candidate was not feeling well and wished her a speedy recovery. She thanked Dr Rasana for presenting herself for the interview.

Interview 5: Dr Xolani Khohliso
The Chairperson invited the candidate to briefly introduce himself.

The Chairperson was pleased by the enthusiastic introduction from a young person and called on Members to pose questions.

Ms Sibiya asked about the candidate’s understanding of linguistic human rights and its linkages to linguistic diversity and multilingualism. She wanted to know why it would be important for him to argue for multilingualism in South Africa.

Mr B Luthuli (IFP) asked about the key arguments expanded by the national language policy framework and enforced by the Use of Official Languages Act of 2012 on language use. He wanted to know if the candidate had identified any gaps between language policy and implementation.

Ms Van Dyk stated that section 6(4) of the Constitution empowers national and provincial government to regulate and monitor their use of official languages and ensure that all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and be treated equitably. She asked what legal and operational measures he would put in place to give effect to these requirements. Considering that he was familiar with operating in the TV space, she asked how he would leverage technology and digital platforms to facilitate language learning and preservation within communities.

Mr Mthethwa was impressed by the level of education of such a young person. Considering the candidate’s passion for using indigenous languages as medium of instruction for learning, he asked his view on black children being expected to learn English and Afrikaans while white children are not expected to learn Sotho or Zulu.

Mr Joseph remarked that following the publication of the language statistics by StatsSA for the 2022 census, PanSALB had expressed concerns about the sharp decline in the use of the South African Sign Language. Additionally, PanSALB highlighted the significant decrease in the number of IsiNdebele learners in schools and noted that the 2022 matric class marked the first class without registering a single learner to learn siSwati in the Gauteng Province. The proportion of English, Xitsonga and Tshivenda speakers have remained relatively stable. However, the statistics showed a decrease in the number of Afrikaans and isiXhosa speakers and a decline in the use of Khoi and San languages. He asked for the candidate’s analysis of this situation and asked about the measures he would put in place to strengthen or ensure the growth of indigenous languages, if appointed.

Mr Joseph asked a follow up question. He appreciated the candidate’s views on what needed to be done to address language inequality. Given that government has been experiencing challenges in implementing all of the official languages and being part of the global village, he asked what the status is on accommodating other languages that are not part of the 12 official languages. For example, he asked what government should do about French which is widely being used in some communities.

The Chairperson thanked Dr Khohliso for his passionate responses and explained the process going forward.

Comment
The Chairperson remarked that the Committee did not have the luxury of time. But she was aware of an individual who had written to another Committee about candidates not being allowed to elaborate during an interview. However, this Committee had agreed to a time limit of 45 minutes and that it should be adhered to.

Interview 6: Mr Thulani Phewa
The Chairperson asked Mr Phewa to briefly introduce himself.

Ms Malomane asked about the key arguments expanded by the national language policy framework and enforced by the Use of Official Languages Act of 2012 on language use. She asked if the candidate had identified any gaps between language policy and implementation.

The candidate experienced connectivity problems and as a result his response was unclear. The Chairperson requested him to repeat his remarks about a mistake that the Committee seemed to have made about the advertisement of the position.

Ms Van Dyk stated that section 6(4) of the Constitution empowers national and provincial government to regulate and monitor their use of official languages and ensure that all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and be treated equitably. She asked for his opinion on the matter and asked what legal and operational measures he would put in place to give effect to these requirements.

Ms Adams stated that section 6(4) of the Constitution empowers national and provincial government to regulate and monitor their use of official languages and ensure that all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and be treated equitably. She asked what legal and operational measures he would put in place to strengthen indigenous languages and ensure that they grow.

Mr Mthethwa found the legal experience reflected in the candidate’s CV convincing and assumed that the candidate has an in-depth knowledge of the PanSALB legal landscape. He asked if there were specific sections that the candidate thought might require amendment.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Phewa for his time and explained the process going forward.

Interview 7: Prof Rosethal Makhubu-Badenhorst
The Chairperson invited the professor to briefly introduce herself.

Ms Sibiya asked the candidate to explain her understanding of linguistic human rights and its linkages to linguistic diversity and multilingualism. She asked why it would be important for her to argue for multilingualism in South Africa.

Mr Zondi questioned the candidate about the key arguments expanded by the national language policy framework and enforced by the Use of Official Languages Act of 2012 on language use. He asked if the candidate had identified any gaps between language policy and implementation.

A question was asked about the role that language campaigns could play in the promotion of multilingualism and the development of sign language.

Mr Mthethwa stated that section 6(4) of the Constitution empowers national and provincial government to regulate and monitor their use of official languages and ensure that all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and be treated equitably. He asked for the candidate’s opinion on the matter and asked what legal and operational measures she would put in place to make this a reality.

Ms V Malomane (ANC) stated that following the publication of the language statistics by StatsSA for the 2022 census, PanSALB had expressed concerns about the sharp decline in the use of the South African Sign Language. It also highlighted the significant decrease in the number of IsiNdebele learners in schools and noted that the 2022 matric class marked the first class without registering a single learner to learn siSwati in the Gauteng Province. The proportion of English, Xitsonga and Tshivenda speakers had remained relatively stable. However, the statistics showed a decrease in the number of Afrikaans and isiXhosa speakers and a decline in the use of Khoi and San languages. She asked for the candidate’s analysis of this situation and asked about the measures she would put in place to strengthen indigenous languages and ensure that they grow, if appointed.

Ms Adams stated that section 6(2) of the Constitution acknowledges the diminishing use and status of indigenous languages as a challenge which requires the state to take practical and positive measures to elevate the status and advance the use of these languages. She asked for the candidate’s opinion on this matter and about the specific measures that she would put in place to ensure that the state, including provinces and municipalities, comply fully with these constitutional requirements.

The Chairperson thanked Prof Makhubu-Badenhorst for availing herself for the interview. She asked Members if the interpreters, who were products of her teaching, could be allowed to acknowledge the professor as they have requested. The interpreters then briefly interacted with Professor Makhubu-Badenhorst who expressed her pride in their work.

Interview 8: Dr Eugene Letsoalo
The Chairperson invited him to introduce himself and Dr Letsoalo responded in his home language.

Ms Van Dyk stated that section 6(2) of the Constitution acknowledges the diminishing use and status of indigenous languages as a challenge which requires the state to take practical and positive measures to elevate the status and advance the use of these languages. She asked for the candidate’s opinion on this matter and asked about the specific measures that he would put in place to ensure that the state, including provinces and municipalities, comply fully with these constitutional requirements.

Mr Joseph asked the candidate to explain his understanding of linguistic human rights and its linkages to linguistic diversity and multilingualism. He asked why it would be important for him to argue for multilingualism in South Africa.
             
Mr Mthethwa questioned the candidate about the key arguments expanded by the national language policy framework and enforced by the Use of Official Languages Act of 2012 on language use. He asked if the candidate had identified any gaps between language policy and implementation.

The Chairperson thanked Dr Letsoalo for attending the interview and outlined the process that would follow.

Interview 9: Dr Mpho Mudau
The Chairperson invited Dr Mudau to briefly introduce herself.

Mr Zondi stated that section 6(2) of the Constitution acknowledges the diminishing use and status of indigenous languages as a challenge which requires the state to take practical and positive measures to elevate the status and advance the use of these languages. He asked for the candidate’s opinion on this matter and asked about the specific measures that she would put in place to ensure that the state, including provinces and municipalities, comply fully with these constitutional requirements.

Ms Malomane asked the candidate to explain her understanding of linguistic human rights and its linkages to linguistic diversity and multilingualism. She asked why it would be important for her to argue for multilingualism in South Africa.

Ms Adams stated that section 6(2) of the Constitution acknowledges the diminishing use and status of indigenous languages as a challenge which requires the state to take practical and positive measures to elevate the status and advance the use of these languages. She asked for the candidate’s opinion on this matter and asked about the specific measures that she would put in place to ensure that the state, including provinces and municipalities, comply fully with these constitutional requirements.

Mr Joseph asked what role the language awareness campaigns could play in the promotion of the multilingualism and the development of sign language.

Ms Sibiya stated that section 6(4) of the Constitution empowers national and provincial government to regulate and monitor their use of official languages and ensure that all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and be treated equitably. She asked what legal and operational measures the candidate would put in place to give effect to these requirements.

The Chairperson thanked Dr Mudau and explained the process that would follow.

The Chairperson thanked Members for their participation. She advised that ten more candidates would be interviewed the following day. She would guide the process and cautioned Members not to stop candidates from expressing themselves. She commended Members for making themselves presentable for the interviews because it was reflecting on the status of Parliament.

The meeting was adjourned.