National Sport & Recreation Amendment Bill [B17-2006] deliberations; briefing on Soccer Coach Ndaye Mulamba

Sports, Arts and Culture

18 October 2006
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

18 October 2006


Chairperson: Mr B Komphela (ANC)

Documents handed out:

National Sport & Recreation Amendment Bill [B17-2006]
Submission of Cricket South Africa in Regard to National Sport and Recreation Amendment Bill
Brief Profile of Ndaye “(Mutimila” “Volvo” “Mustang”) Mulamba (Striker)
Additional Inputs: National Sport and Recreation Amendment Bill (submitted by Disability Sport South Africa (DISSA)

The Committee continued its deliberations on submissions from sporting bodies. Further points from the submission of Cricket South Africa were discussed. As a private body, it had no connection to the state and was subject to private law. Disputes should be dealt with by neither the Minister nor the Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC), but should be referred to a panel of experts. Members disputed these opinions as cricket represented the country and was thus in the public domain. Transformation was still lacking in their ranks.

The submission from Disability Sport South Africa had cleared up some incorrect statements in the Amendment Bill about the responsibilities of SASCOC as opposed to the Department of Sport and Recreation in terms of training, facilities, mass participation and funding for development. The necessary amendments had been made to the Bill.

The submission by the SA Rugby Union had also pointed out incorrect references to the responsibilities of SASCOC and the Department. This raised a lengthy discussion on the removal of references to the defunct Sports Council in the principal Act and the Amendment Bill. Another major point was the perceived breach of the right to freedom of association. Members agreed that it would be unconstitutional to enforce membership of SASCOC, and further discussed the position of federations who did not voluntarily join the body, and the consequences of such a decision. They also considered what government’s relationship should be to SASCOC. Members felt that further political discussions were needed before deliberations on the Amendment Bill could be completed. The intention was to put nation-building issues in place. The Minister’s position must be strengthened so that proper transformation of teams was enforced. The A/B was the last resort to correct the position, and needed to be pushed. Its main objective was to change the character of sport. Lawyers needed to deal with the legal issues and could clean up the proposals.

The Committee was briefed on the position of Ndaye Mulamba, a refugee from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, who was currently coaching in Cape Town. Two NGOs requested support from Parliament that persons of this calibre could be properly recognised, and their value to the community acknowledged. The Chairperson agreed to make arrangements for Mr Mulamba to meet with FIFA officials.

The Chairperson welcomed members and supported the suggestion made by Mr Dhlamini the previous day that the Committee should take the National Sport and Recreation Amendment Bill (A/B) to ordinary provincial and regional federations. There was no rush to complete deliberations on the A/B. He would see how practical such a programme would be.

Deliberation of submission by Cricket South Africa (CSA)
Adv Gideon Boshoff (Legal Advisor, Department of Sport and Recreation (SRSA)) referred the Committee to the part of the Cricket South Africa (CSA) submission that dealt with the hearings into the Hansie Cronje corruption allegations, and in particular the rulings made  by Judge King. The United Cricket Board of South Africa (UCBSA) considered itself a private body with no connection to the state. It originated from a contract and not a statute, and its powers were defined in this contract. Its functions and funding were private, and the UCBSA was therefore subject to private law. It said that the Minister could make substantial intervention in terms of the common law. Adv Boshoff said this was how the UCBSA had interpreted the court judgement. SRSA agreed with the response that it stemmed from a private contract and should be subject to private and common law. However, this did not mean that the Minister could not intervene in its affairs, as this intervention would be done in a public way. He commented that there was some truth in the statement of the UCBSA, but the Minister had responsibilities on a parallel basis. The functions of UCBSA and the Minister should enhance one another. He pointed out that the Cronje allegations had resulted in a Commission of Inquiry which had been endorsed by President Mbeki.

The Chairperson said that there should be an explanation of the court ruling, not an interpretation of the judgment. He asked the Committee if they could accept the CSA proposal.

Mr M Dikgacwi (ANC) found it a pity that CSA was not present to engage the Committee. He was not sure how the Committee should deal with its submission.

Mr T Louw (ANC) deduced that the UCBSA was saying that it was a private entity, and that government and the Minister had no right to interfere in its affairs. It believed this was in line with the court ruling. However, the players represented the country and were answerable to government and the nation. He did not agree that the Minister could not intervene. The UCBSA used the flag as a national federation and were therefore a public entity.

Mr E Saloojee (ANC) said that for years after the transformation in the country the UCBSA and CSA had sent players overseas to represent the country. Players had represented South Africa even during the apartheid days. It was difficult to understand the suggestion that government could not intervene at all. He asked if some event had triggered this assertion.

Adv Boshoff said that the response of CSA was an attempt to leverage the disqualification of intervention. It catered for certain alternatives. Private law governed the domain of CSA, but they forgot that the Minister had the overall power to manage Sport and Recreation in the country. The SA Rugby Union (SARU) took the same position but had not raised the issue in their submission. The merits of CSA’s arguments were flawed. Cricket was a national sport and thus fell more in the public than the private domain. They had raised some issues on which the judge had pronounced, but had reached a flawed conclusion. He could therefore not agree with the assertions.

Mr Saloojee quoted the example of the dispute between the Free State and Griqualand West provincial unions. They had come to Parliament to resolve the dispute. If the units of CSA recognised the right of Parliament to mediate, then this was a huge contradiction to the stance of the mother body. There were serious racial problems in Gauteng, and it was difficult to understand the behaviour. Parliament should hold CSA accountable.

Mr R Reed (ANC) felt that it was quite clear that federations like CSA wanted no intervention. This suggested that they were hiding something. Either the body was untransformed, or there was a serious problem in their ranks. Going to the provinces was the correct call, as national federations ignored their members on the ground.

The Chairperson referred to the comments from the UCBSA on page 11, section 13.3. CSA said they would welcome the opportunity to present orally in due course. Two letters of invitation had been sent to them, but they had not attended the public hearings. He did not understand some parts of the submission. They had been invited, but were not present, and there was nothing more to be said. The level of engagement was weak compared to that of SARU, who had taken the opportunity to make an oral presentation.

Mr B Solo (ANC) supported the position of the Chairperson. He noted that the UCBSA had not substantiated its position.

Adv Boshoff raised another point in the CSA submission. CSA had made an alternate suggestion which was essentially that SASCOC should not deal with disputes, nor should the Minister intervene. CSA suggested that the matter should rather go to a panel of lawyers established for this purpose, with knowledge of sports law. This was on the model of the international court of arbitration in sport (CAS). However, Adv Boshoff said that this was a low level forum. SRSA could not endorse this suggestion, and it was way out of line.

Mr Dikgacwi was confused by the submission. It quoted the case of the suspension of the Hellenic Football Federation (HFF) by FIFA. This followed the pattern of other submissions.

The Chairperson was concerned that incorrect perceptions were raised, and that the facts had not been checked to substantiate the arguments. He felt strongly that the Committee should not be misled. The Greek government had seen a collapse in the governance of the sport. The extent of the intervention was a problem. He was getting annoyed with this example being raised continuously. The rule of law should be respected. He pointed out that even if a sporting federation was a private entity, it would not give it the right to break the law, for instance by selling drugs or defrauding SA Revenue. It seemed that CSA would not accept anyone telling them how to do business.

Mr Louw said that the members of the Committee were politicians and not lawyers. This was a political Bill. If CSA wanted to discuss the technical and legal matters it raised, then it should have come to the Committee to discuss them. He proposed that the submission should be shelved until such time as CSA had met with the Committee.

The Chairperson said that the report would capture the Committee’s views on the non-attendance of CSA. In the case of the HFF, there was no substantial evidence that they had been suspended by FIFA due to government intervention. Anyone who tried to make this claim should produce empirical evidence.

Deliberations on submission by Disability Sport South Africa
Adv Boshoff then turned to the submission by Disability Sport South Africa (DISSA), which was a one page emailed document. It made four points. The first referred to Section 7 of the A/B (Clause 8 of the principal Act), under which SASCOC was given the responsibility for education and training for high performance. This was incorporated into the A/B and led to some duplication. Mr Boshoff stated that the training of sports leaders for the high performance aspect would remain a SASCOC responsibility, and reference to recreation would be deleted in a new Section 7.1. A new Section 7.2 would be inserted in which SRSA would take responsibility for general training regarding sports and recreation. The DISSA concerns had therefore been accommodated, while the crux of the section remained more or less the same.

The Chairperson said that the submission had referred to Section 7. Where it was proposed that SASCOC was responsible for education and training, it must be made clear that this was in relation to the high performance component. DISSA had argued that education and training was a government responsibility where this related to mass participation. Federations were best placed to conduct training in sport-specific areas based on their expertise.

Adv B Lufundo (State Law Advisor) confirmed that the performance of functions by SASCOC only related to the high performance component. The reference to recreation had been removed. Education and training were listed as government responsibilities in regard to mass participation.

The Chairperson said that this could not be an area of people wanting money as it would undermine development.

Adv Boshoff raised the second concern of DISSA. The proposal in Clause 8 (Section 9 of the Act) which said that SASCOC was responsible for facilities flew in the face of local government’s responsibilities and the Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG). He said this was correct, and the A/B had been amended.

The Chairperson asked what the responsibilities of MIG were. 244 facilities had not been built in 2006. This was the second year running that things had not gone to plan. There was some evidence of MIG driving school facilities, but the MIG must be shown to be working. Sport was being pushed at one level, but there was a stalemate situation at another.

Adv Boshoff raised Ms Burchell’s third proposal. In Clause 9 (Section 10 of the Act), SRSA should have the responsibility of mass participation. There was some confusion between the roles of SRSA and SASCOC. He said this was correct too, as mass participation was a SRSA responsibility. The A/B had been amended.

The fourth proposal contained an incorrect reference, and should have referred to Clause 10 of the A/B (Section 11 of the Act). This mentioned SASCOC in relation to funding for development, whereas this should be an SRSA responsibility. This had been amended.

The Chairperson said that the DISSA input had been valuable and he was happy with the amendments that had been made.

Deliberations on submissions by the South African Rugby Union
Adv Boshoff then turned to the comments made by SARU. He summarised the four main points for the Committee’s consideration. Like DISSA, similar proposals had been tabled for substitution of SRSA and local government for SASCOC in providing funds for basic facilities. This section had been amended. The proposal had been accepted, and reference to SASCOC in this area would be removed.

Clause 8 contained a similar proposal which was similarly noted by DISSA. This had been amended.

SARU had put forward a proposal relating to Clause 8 of the A/B. The original wording was that SASCOC would provide funds in accordance with current policies. This should be SRSA’s responsibility. Likewise, it was not SASCOC’s role to plan facilities but SRSA’s. He agreed with this proposal.

The Chairperson noted the references to the Sports Commission (SC). He asked if Adv Boshoff and Adv Lufundo had taken part in the drafting of the amendment. There were many references to the SC in the A/B even though it had been repealed.

Adv Boshoff said that he had written the original draft of the A/B.

Adv Lufuno said that this was being amended. There was the Sports Commission Act, which had subsequently been repealed. References to the SC would be substituted by references to SASCOC.

The Chairperson said that this A/B did not amend the entire principal Act. Only a section would be changed. This would not repeal the Act where the SC was mentioned.

Adv Boshoff said that the Sports Commission Repeal Act had repealed the South African Sports Commission Act.

The Chairperson said that in the original National Sports and Recreation Act, Act 109, there were references throughout the Act to the SC. The A/B only dealt with a section of the Act.

Adv Boshoff agreed that there were still references to the SC and that amendments were needed.

The Chairperson said there should not have to be any consequential amendments. The repeal should have removed all references to the SC, as the principal Act still made reference to something that no longer existed.

Mr Solo understood that there would still references to the SC. He suggested that the A/B should have include a provision that any references to the SC should be interpreted as meaning SACOC. Substantive subsequent amendments might be needed to sort this out. The Sports Commission Act had been repealed, and the link no longer existed.

Mr A Mlangeni (ANC) said that these references should have been removed long ago. There was nothing to replace the SC but its functions had passed to SASCOC.

Mr Dikgacwi said this was caused by SASCOC not being able to substitute for the SC, as it had not been created by an Act of Parliament.

Mr Greg Fredericks (Chief Director, SRSA) said that the two Acts had been passed at approximately the same time. The Sports Commission Act had been repealed in full, while the National Sports and Recreation Act was being amended. References to the SC were being corrected.

The Chairperson asked why there were still references to the SC in the A/B.

Mr Fredericks said that these should have been amended when the Sports Commission Act had been repealed.

The Chairperson said this was being explained now. He asked if all the references would be deleted.

Mr Fredericks said that this was the case. The priority at the time had been to close the SC. The A/B would serve two purposes, firstly to delete any remaining references to the SC and secondly to grant powers to the Minister.

Mr Mlangeni asked if the National Sports and Recreation Act was still in place.

Mr Fredericks replied that this was the principal Act.

Mr Solo said it was a simple matter. In the long title there was a reference to the SC. Portions of the principal Act would be amended. In some sections there were references to the SC. The proper way to deal with this would be in the long title, with an explanation that matters referring to the SC should now refer to SASCOC. The principal Act had to be tidied up.

The Chairperson said this needed to be done. Adv Boshoff was to investigate.

Ms M Ntuli (ANC) asked for clarity.

The Chairperson said that the Sports Commission Act had been repealed and not the Sports and Recreation Act. This Act should have been repealed as well. The intention now was to delete any references to the SC. The Committee would not deal with any Bill that still referred to the SC.

Mr B Dhlamini (IFP) asked if there was any connection to the establishment of the SC.

The Chairperson said this was a problem.

Adv Lufuno sketched the background. The intention was to remove any reference to the SC. This had in fact been included in the long title. References to the SC were in bold, which indicated that those words would be deleted from the principal Act. References to SRSA in this context had been underlined, which indicated that they would be written into the amended Act.

Mr Solo noted that he had misread the A/B title, which said it all.

The Chairperson said that the term SC would be substituted by SRSA or SASCOC as appropriate.

Adv Boshoff provided some background as to why the principal Act had not been amended at the time of the disbanding of the SC. SASCOC had been established from the Minsterial Task Team process. SRSA had been unsure as to where SASCOC would fit in. There was a lot of pressure at the time. SRSA had thought it better to stagnate the process at the time. If the principal Act were to be amended, they were unsure of what the roles of SASCOC and SRSA would have been. Because of the time frames, it was felt better to leave the issue open-ended. SASCOC’s involvement had come to the fore in time. It had made more sense to defer the amendments.

Ms Ntuli was still concerned, pointing out that the third document was the A/B. The Committee was trying to amend the principal Act. This is what they were trying to amend.

Adv Boshoff referred to Clause 11 on page 5 of the SARU submission. SASCOC should not be handling the funding, but SRSA should be doing this. SRSA must apportion funds to development. This was a contentious point of constitutionality.

Mr Solo asked why responsibilities were being taken from SRSA to SASCOC. He mentioned an experience with the arts. Requests for funding had been passed to the Arts Council, but they were not interested in small town problems.

Adv Boshoff stated that the next concern of SARU was the matter of freedom of association. Membership of SASCOC was open to all who qualified. In the principal Act it was specified that membership would not be granted to any federation that practiced discrimination. However, membership was not compulsory. When it had been mooted that compulsory membership would be introduced there had been an outcry. On the basis of the opposing statements, the matter had been referred to the State Law Advisors. They had produced a 28-page document, which expressed their opinion that federations could not be forced to be members of SASCOC in terms of the Constitution. This led to the current version of the A/B.

Adv Boshoff referred to clause 6. The section was repealed in toto. It was unconstitutional in this format. He understood that there would be no compulsory membership, and this was a matter for SASCOC’s constitution to address.  He had not looked at SASCOC’s constitution at the time that the A/B was drafted. SARU argued that attention should be paid to this. This document said that federations had to apply for membership at the General Assembly of SASCOC. The A/B said that federations would become members of the body through statutory means. The definition of SASCOC was that it was composed of, inter alia, the sports federations. Subsequent reference to the Bill gave the impression that federations would be compelled to become members of SASCOC. That was the opinion provided three years previously.

He said that he had had a meeting with the Deputy Minister the previous day. He agreed that the definition of SASCOC might create a problem. In this way the A/B might be unconstitutional. It was imperative to redraft the SASCOC constitution. There were two alternative solutions. The first was that that section of the A/B could be rephrased. The second alternative, as suggested by the Deputy Minster, was to keep the definition but to rephrase it on the lines of “SASCOC may consist of voluntary constituent components”. This was a viable option. The Deputy Minister had also indicated that Adv Boshoff should draft a letter to SASCOC indicating that their constitution was unconstitutional. It should be aligned with the freedom of association principles of the national Constitution. The case had not yet been tested. In the meantime the Clause of the A/B should be amended. The two proposals were therefore to amend the definition of SASCOC by deleting the reference to its components, and the Deputy Minister’s proposal to stress the voluntary nature of membership while amending the SASCOC constitution accordingly.

Mr J Masango (DA) stated that his understanding of constitutional matters was that an issue was either completely right or wrong, not in degrees. He asked if SASCOC would still exist should no federations choose to be members.

Ms Ntuli said the issue of compulsory membership should be highlighted, as it was not the case now.

Adv Boshoff agreed that in constitutional matters wrong was wrong. He would look at what was to be amended. There should be a definition that only had a bearing on federations. This would be a small amendment, whereas a small error might necessitate severe changes further down the line. SASCOC membership might dwindle, however SRSA would only recognise members of SASCOC as the sole custodians of that code in the country.

Mr Fredericks said the members must not make too much of this issue. If a code was not a member of SASCOC it would be denied participation in all major international games. Opposition had only been recorded from two major codes. Rugby had to be a member in order to send a sevens team to the Commonwealth Games. Rugby and cricket had attended the latest SASCOC meeting and had voted. There was a problem with the voting system. Codes who took part in the Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games and other major events were rewarded with extra votes.

He reminded the Committee that rugby had taken the late Minister Tshwete and President Mandela to court. This was as a result of participation by the then National Sports Council. The Committee should not spend too much time on this. Use of the word “may” could spare possible constitutional challenges to the legislation.

Mr Fredericks said that SRSA had the right to recognise federations that were members of SASCOC only. There was no compulsion. When South African teams went abroad, even if they were still voluntary organisations, the question was whether they represented their organisation or the whole country. They used the national flag, colours and symbols. A body was needed to preserve these treasured symbols. The supporters represented the public.

Mr Reed was concerned about those federations who did not participate at the Olympics and other events. There were many of these codes, but they still took part in different forms of international competition. Often they would send “white” teams. If federations were not members of SASCOC, he did not know how the Minister could perform his oversight function.

Mr Louw deduced that there was a tinge of rejection of SASCOC. The major federations would probably not accept the body. If rugby was not a member, then this would be a serious problem. He suggested a separate meeting with the dissenting bodies and SASCOC. The umbrella body was being rejected through the back door.

Ms W Makgate (ANC) referred to questions raised earlier. If federations did not recognise the mother body, it was a sign that they did not want intervention by the Minister. If they were unhappy with SASCOC they would go straight to court.

Ms Ntuli concurred with Mr Fredericks. Federations could not be private bodies at the expense of the country. Transformation was part of sport and there should be controlling measures linked to the process. A controlling body was needed to oversee the process. The Minister would not do this himself, but would only intervene if the matter went beyond the competency of SASCOC. She asked what this body lacked. There were not enough teeth to compel affiliation to SASCOC. It had a role in the transformation of sport. A start had to be made somewhere.

Mr Masango said that federations were saying that membership was optional, but were still playing international sport. Nothing was happening.

Mr Louw said that membership could not be voluntary. It did not make sense otherwise.

Adv Boshoff reiterated the words of Mr Fredericks. There were no other options.

The Chairperson said that this was a complicated matter. In comparing the SC to SASCOC, he queried which body had teeth.

Adv Boshoff said that the SC had been a statutory body, and therefore a public entity. It had been well controlled, and had enjoyed more powers than SASCOC. SASCOC had maintained some of the SC’s functions, such as the service level agreements. The SC had had more power. SASCOC was only concerned with the high performance component. This had not been the case with the SC, which had served a broader field.

Mr Fredericks said that the current reality was that no body, not even the Minister, had teeth. It was the intention of the A/B to remedy this failing. Currently, the Minister had responsibilities but no authority.

The Chairperson remarked that the Committee was grappling to enrich the Bill. In the original text the Minister must intervene, but he wanted to know on which issues. It had been a cumbersome exercise to reach this point. It was now clear that the Minister had to have intervention rights, but not so clear when, how and at what level they would apply. It seemed it would only apply to disputes.

Mr Louw said there was some reaction to the observations.

The Chairperson said that the federations were going back to a state of rebellion. The SC had controlled the major federations, and he asked if this was right or wrong.

Mr Fredericks said that the big federations were unhappy. In the SASCOC constitution, major codes like football, rugby and cricket had fewer votes than codes like sailing and korfbal. Voting rights were not decided by the number of players in each code but on their participation in international events. Therefore the Olympic codes already had an advantage on others. Football was not particularly involved at the Olympics as they only allowed Under 23 teams. The big organisations were not represented on the SASCOC Board. At the last election Mr Mkhize had been opposed by Mr Les Williams (korfbal) and had lost. The demographic representivity of some codes was dubious. The big federations felt that SASCOC was a waste of time.

The Chairperson said that this was the right impression. Questions had been raised the previous day. The big federations had made submissions. They did not mind joining SASCOC but were unhappy with the processes. Rugby wanted to be a part of the body, but had issues. Mr Koos Basson had not disputed this. The majority of sportspeople in the country were part of the big five. The SA Football Association (SAFA) was also a member, but saw problems in the organisation. SAFA said that they would consider withdrawing their membership if the current situation were to prevail. Section 5 of the Act would have to be repealed as there was a thin line of unconstitutionality. He proposed that the A/B should not have the current definition of SASCOC. It should emphasise the voluntary component instead. It would then be constitutional.

Mr Louw said that on the one hand membership of SASCOC was not forced. On the other, non-members could not compete internationally in national colours. This was a form of technical enforcement.

The Chairperson did not agree. If they were members then the bodies would be recognised by SRSA. They would then enjoy the benefits of using national symbols. If non-members did not apply to SASCOC then they would have no sign of legitimacy.

Mr Mlangeni said that SASCOC must act as an umbrella body but was a non-governmental organisation (NGO). He asked why the Committee should be concerned with it in that case. It existed in terms of its own rules and constitution. The body was there for the federations and for all those who would like to join it. The legislation would now be dealing with an NGO. This confused him.

Ms Ntuli was of the view that SASCOC was in the legislation. Government wanted to transform sport. She suggested that all must be involved even if the involvement was not perfect. She was concerned to avoid criticism of the Committee. SASCOC was needed. Government needed to pronounce on how to ensure the transformation of SASCOC.  The concerns of the federations were serious. The Committee should not set itself up to be accused of ignoring these concerns. SASCOC could not be included in the legislation if it was not operating at its best. SASCOC had to clean out its house.

Mr Dhlamini had proposed the previous day that a political discussion be held. SASCOC had been born out of a political process but was suffering from a lack of transformation. The only route had been to approach a task team, which had recommended the formation of SASCOC. The idea was democratic, but the current form of SASCOC was not the product as envisaged by the MTT. This was why they were moving in circles. It was now merely another platform to frustrate transformation. He felt that the submissions should be suspended and that members should engage in a political discussion. Intervention should be limited and be in terms of the Constitution. The submissions of the federations were causing frustration.

Mr Fredericks said there had been some mistakes during the public hearings. These arose from trying to replace a statutory body with an NGO. At most, government should recognise SASCOC. Then it could look at the powers of the Minister. The functions of SASCOC should be moved to SRSA. The powers of the SC should also go to SRSA. The Act needed to be revised. Membership of SASCOC should not be compulsory. This should not be confusing, and results could be achieved. The Committee should craft what it wanted and then discuss this with the Minister.

Mr Louw said the Committee should focus more on politics than technical issues. Members should go back to their parties and discuss the political requirements of the A/B, and the parties should then make submissions. The legal people could then review the situation.

The Chairperson said that the political questions which led to the A/B should be discussed. The intention was to put nation-building issues in place. The Minister could not be left as a pawn when lily white teams represented the country. The federations were saying that the situation was incorrect. The Committee had failed to correct what had happened twelve years ago. The A/B was the last resort, and needed to be pushed. The complexion of sport had to be changed. The main objective was to change the character of sport. Lawyers needed to deal with the legal issues and could clean up the proposals.

Briefing on Ndaye Nulamba’s position
Ms Nzwaki Qeqe (Programme Manager, Catholic Welfare and Development (CWD)) introduced herself and Mr Jean-Jacques Somwe (Orientation and Integration Officer, CWD). They ran a project for refugees, and had attended to address the Committee about the problem of Ndaye Mulamba.

Mr Mulamba had arrived in South Africa in 1994 as a refugee. He was born in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1950. He had become a professional footballer and had eventually earned 44 international caps. He represented the then Zaire at the 1974 World Cup. He was currently coaching in the Samora Machel township in Cape Town. As an NGO, CWD needed support from Parliament to identify persons like Mr Mulamba, so that they could continue to create history. There were already 130 entries about Mr Mulamba on the internet. Some acknowledgement was needed on the work that he was doing. South Africa was the sports capital of the continent. He was regularly criticised for not being a South African citizen as he was still classified as a refugee. It was wrong that a person of this calibre was not properly recognised, as he was adding value to the community.

The Chairperson said that he would make arrangements for Mr Mulamba to meet with Mr Sepp Blatter of FIFA when he visited the country. He introduced MS Qeqe to Mr Fredericks. Mr Mulamba was a legend of African football and an icon. He had a contribution to make to South African sport.

The meeting was adjourned.



No related


No related documents


  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

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: