Meeting with full SABC Board

This premium content has been made freely available

Communications and Digital Technologies

30 April 2008
Chairperson: Mr I Vadi (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee decided the focus of the meeting should be the issue of the leaked memorandum that was written by the SABC Board Chairperson and discussed at a board meeting, after which a revised version of the document was drafted. The Committee was concerned by a variety of issues raised in the memorandum but mostly that the memorandum was leaked at the board level. The performance of Group Chief Executive Officer, Mr Dali Mpofu, and other executive managers was allegedly questioned in the memorandum and the Committee was concerned that such issues were not brought before them. Although the Board asked for an opportunity to complete the processes that they had engaged in, including formally handing the memorandum to the CEO and allowing him time to respond, the Committee did not believe that the Board was capable of dealing with the issue. There were other issues that the Committee did not deal with, such as the allegations of racism, political bias and violation of human rights of the staff members at the Sea Point SABC offices by its regional manager.

The majority party members of the Committee decided after a brief caucus that it appeared that the Board was unable to fulfill its fiduciary duties. There appeared to be division between the SABC Board and management and therefore they moved for a vote of no confidence in the SABC Board. The Democratic Alliance felt that this was an abuse of parliamentary procedure and left the meeting. The Chairperson noted the motion from the ANC and stated that because of this, the SABC Strategic and Budget Plan would not be reviewed. He added that this would have to be taken to the House and debated and thereafter further steps would be taken.

Meeting report

 

Mr I Vadi (ANC) explained that this was an extra-ordinary meeting. The Committee had perceived the lack of attendance by all the SABC board members at the 29 April meeting, as the Board adopting a dismissive attitude. It was felt that because of controversy that surrounded the SABC, the whole Board should have attended that meeting. The Committee noted the importance of the meeting and that there was a sense that there might be some problems at SABC. He had managed to secure a copy of the leaked memorandum but did not want to place any responsibility on anyone for it being leaked. Rather an explanation was required because the Committee was not satisfied with developments at the SABC and wanted to restore the credibility and integrity and performance of the corporation. He discounted the possibility that there might be a perception that because the Board was appointed by the President that they were only accountable to the President, he added that they were accountable to Parliament.

Ms D Smuts (DA) mentioned that the Chairperson had made a number of comments in the name of the Committee that she had no knowledge of. She had not seen the leaked memorandum. She added that the President had a non-discretionary function and that the Board had to report to Parliament.

Ms Kanyisiwe Mkonza (Chairperson: SABC Board) introduced the board members as well as giving apologies for those absentee members. The following were present: Ms Christine Qunta (Deputy Chairperson), Ms Pansy Tlakula, Mr Andile Mbeki, Mr Bheki Khumalo, Mr Desmond Golding and Ms Charlotte Mampane. Mr Dali Mpofu (CEO: SABC) and Mr Robin Nicholson (SABC: Chief Financial Officer) were also present.

Mr K Khumalo (ANC) agreed with Ms Smuts that there was a memorandum that he had not seen and thought it was appropriate that the Committee see it. Since there were new members he felt that some of the issues should be addressed. Last year the SABC had lost the broadcasting rights on a lucrative deal with the Premier Soccer League (PSL) to Supersport even after they had used the courts. Also there were legal costs that were problematic. As a result there were four million radio listeners who were not sure whether they would be receiving the soccer matches. The Committee had yet to be briefed on the issue. There was also the issue of the legal advisor, Mr Mafika Sihlali. Serious allegations were brought against him and he had eventually resigned after a suspension. The Committee was not informed of these occurrences and they had not seen any proof of his resignation. The Board had been given a chance to deal with the issue of the perceived bias and racism at the SABC offices in Sea Point. The SABC’s financial management system was found to be inaccurate and there had been a request that a revised method of calculation be used. While the Committee awaited explanations on these issues there was a leaked memorandum that stated that the SABC had appointed a task team to deal with numerous issues. There was also the role played by Dr Snuki Zikalala regarding the blacklisting of political commentaries that had resulted in the Sisulu Commission and the Committee expected a briefing on its report.

Mr S Nxumalo (ANC) emphasised that the memorandum should be a priority at the meeting because it raised concerns about the confidentiality of the matters that were discussed by the Board. He also wanted a response on the leaked memorandum from management.

Ms S Vos (IFP) raised a number of concerns about the SABC Sea Point office. She asked if the Board had visited or spoken to the staff at the Sea Point office including the contract workers to address the issues raised in the Sisulu Commission. She mentioned that the Committee had received information about this and was taking the allegations of mismanagement, corruption, racism and the abuse of human rights of the staff seriously. She asked if the Board had initiated an investigation and an analysis into the political coverage emanating from the Sea Point office. This was related to numerous claims that the Head of the Sea Point office, Mr Jeffery Twala, personally ordered coverage of ANC politicians and was supportive of an internal power struggle within the Western Cape to oust Premier Ebrahim Rasool. She had analysis that identified serious claims of this. She asked if the Board and management found it unacceptable that there had been a constant flight of staff from the Sea Point office every four/five months for the past six years. She asked if the Board had been aware that Mr Twala had told white staff members that they were in the way of transformation and asked why he should re-employ white contract workers. In a submission to the Broadcast, Electronic, Media and Allied Workers' Union (BEMAWU) that was subsequently forwarded to the Sisulu Commission, an SABC staff member stated under oath that Mr Twala had coerced her and a colleague to override the computer system for two years with regard to overtime payments. She asked if the Board was aware that as a consequence, new staff were not paid overtime for working on public holidays and Mr Twala had received a performance bonus for keeping his budget down. After a formal grievance procedure, Mr Twala was forced to pay overtime but did not allow staff to see their timesheets. If the Board had spoken to the Sea Point office staff, it would be clear that things were bad. When the SABC implemented their whistleblower programme, evidence was presented to the Deloitte and Touche investigators and a forensic audit was performed. The staff was subsequently told that the Deloitte and Touche report recommended that Mr Twala be dismissed but nothing had happened. If managers failed to act on the evidence presented by a whistleblower, they were liable to prosecution. She asked if the Board was able to provide the Committee with the Deloitte and Touche report and if they could give an explanation on what they had done regarding Mr Twala's actions and why he should not be dismissed.

Mr M Kholwane (ANC) moved that the Committee begin with the issues surrounding the leaked memorandum.

Ms Mkonza explained that the memorandum was meant to be a discussion document that she presented to the Board. It was an assessment during the three months that she had been in office of the situation at the SABC. The Board was clear on their accountability to the Committee. The memorandum was presented to the non-executive members and other members of the Board subsequently added other issues to the original memorandum. Therefore presently it was a different document, than what was leaked and picked up by the media. The leak was unfortunate as it was only Board members that had access to the memorandum. The Board had decided that the document would be given to the Group Chief Executive Office and he would be given the opportunity to respond. She stated that to discuss the memorandum now at this meeting would jeopardise the process they had embarked upon. Some of the issues were related to the concerns raised by the Committee and that were shared by the Board. The Board had not taken any position and added that essentially it was a legal process.

Ms Christine Qunta (Deputy Chairperson: SABC Board) added that there was process that was being followed and asked the Committee that they be allowed to complete their process. Afterward the outcome of that process, it would be made public.

Mr Nxumalo responded that the memorandum was already in the public domain and raised many issues. The memorandum could be viewed as defamatory to some of the people named. He was not sure how the leak was going to be dealt with. He added that leakages should not happen at board level. It was their fiduciary duty and they should provide leadership. There were issues that were raised that could have placed the new Board members in a difficult position. He felt that they should not wait for the Board. Since the CEO was present he could respond.

Mr Khumalo said that it seemed as if the Board was downplaying the importance of the memorandum.

Mr Khlowane noted that the memorandum was dated the 4 April 2008. He wanted to know the exact date when it was given to the CEO and further asked for a step-by-step review of the events since the memorandum was written. The content of the memorandum could be detrimental to those named. The leaked memorandum questioned the confidentiality of the Board and he asked for further explanation on the 'unfortunate' leakage.


Ms Mkonza replied that the memorandum was drafted on 4 April 2008 and the meeting was held on 9 April 2008. The leak happened afterwards. The CEO had been briefed on procedure but he had not formally received the document. He would be given the document and would then have seven days to respond.

Ms L Yengeni (ANC) agreed that the Board should not deal with the matter. She asked if the Board could guarantee that the processes that they had embarked upon would not be leaked before they came before the Committee. The Board had not had the decency to inform the Committee that they were aware of the leakages and inform the Committee on what was being done. She felt that the Board had underestimated the importance of the memorandum. If the Board was in fact questioning the performance of the CEO, it was quite serious. There were issues discussed in the Board meeting and contained in the memorandum that should be brought to the Committee so that it could be dealt with as a collective. The whole Board should be answerable.

Mr R Pieterse (ANC) thought that if the memorandum had not been leaked, the Committee would not have been informed. He noted that some of its issues had been raised on previous occasions and if they continually existed, when would they be addressed? There seemed to be a division within the Board yet the Strategic Plan had to be based on the cooperation of the whole Board. It did not inspire confidence. He questioned their honesty and asked if their egos were more important.

Mr Desmond Golding (SABC: Board member) mentioned that there could not be any confusion on the accountability of the Board. There was a discussion document that was presented to the Board that could be viewed as an evaluation. It was normal practice that if there was new leadership, the corporation would then be evaluated. The document and discussion followed the evaluation. It was accepted that there were a variety of issues. The Board had tasked the Chairperson to synthesise the issues raised in the meeting with those in the document. When it was comprehensive, the CEO could respond. He stressed the unity of the SABC. The leakage was unfortunate but it could be considered as a crucial learning experience. He thought there were robust debates between the members of the Board as opposed to differences. He requested that once the process had been followed through they be allowed to give an accounting to the Committee.

Ms Pansy Tlakula (SABC: Board member) stated that the leak was serious. When it had happened, the Chair was requested to investigate and she believed that this was being done. The Chairperson and the Board dealt with matters fairly and objectively.

Mr Bheki Khumalo (SABC: Board member) agreed that a proper evaluation should take place. It was a collective document of the Board. The decision taken by the Board was collective. The process would allow the CEO to respond to the document and then the Board would take a collective decision based on his response. He did not think that the issues should be dealt with in this meeting as there were several legal and contractual issues. He added that any leak was not acceptable. Once the CEO had responded and the Board had come to a determination, the Board would inform the Committee. The issues around performance and standards were serious and were important. The document sought to raise the performance of the SABC at both the Board and management level.

Mr Kholwane reiterated his question of when was the memorandum given to the CEO and asked for a response from him. There was a difference between exercising duties and interfering. Some of the issues raised in the memorandum sought to encroach on other duties and he was not sure about the further-developed document, as he had not seen it.
 
Ms Yengeni asked if each and every Board member would take responsibility for everything contained in the memorandum and that included the CEO. The Committee viewed it as serious misconduct to leak confidential information of the Board to the public.

Mr Mkonza replied that she wrote it and owned and did not dispute it.

Mr Dali Mpofu (GCEO: SABC) replied that he did not take responsibility for the memorandum and as yet had not received the document.


Mr Robin Nicholson (SABC: Chief Financial Officer) added that the executive members of the Board had not seen the document and he disputed some of the facts within the document.

Ms Qunta responded that the document was discussed. The decision to appoint a three-person committee was unanimous. The memorandum was adopted, in a sense, for the purpose of further insight into the issues. They accepted that management would take issue with the document and that was why they were following due process. She added that since the Board had accepted the Chairperson's concerns, she thought that, yes, the Board then owned the document.

Ms Yengeni reiterated her question.

Ms Qunta mentioned that Section 51 of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) gave the Board certain powers and functions. Broadly it was to govern the corporation in a manner that preserved its assets and ensure that there were financial controls in place. The Articles of Association also said that the Board controlled the affairs of the corporation and that it directed the corporation in both policy and strategy. Section 86 of the PFMA stated that when it came to a board's attention that PFMA provisions were not being followed within the entity, each board member was liable criminally, individually and collectively. So the issue of the Board's oversight was taken seriously. When the Chairperson of the Board raised concerns, they did not have a choice as to whether they should intervene. The only choice they had was the nature of the intervention. The Board had an obligation to intervene within the parameters set out. It may not be possible for the Board members to state that they owned each and every line in the memorandum because there was the possibility that management may disagree and produce counter-facts to the concerns the Chairperson had. They were discharging their fiduciary duties to the SABC and their oversight role in the SABC and she pleaded with the Committee to allow the Board to continue with the process. If they allowed the Committee to fulfill their role they would be abdicating their duties.

Ms Dudu Mwelase (SABC) thought that it was important to note that the executive directors also received the memorandum from the leak.

Ms Mkonza was concerned that the content of the memorandum would be discussed. The Board took full responsibility for everything that happened in the SABC. If the Committee allowed them to complete their process, they come back to report as well as further investigate the leak. They could not report until the CEO and the executives were able to respond.

The Chairperson asked for the composition of the sub-committee.

Ms Mkonza replied that it no longer existed as it was just given the task of compiling information. The sub-committee consisted of Ms Mhkonza, Ms Fadila Lagadien and Ms Qunta.

Ms Smuts stated that the ANC's position did not make any sense. The issues had all been dealt with. It was clear that the Board had a plan to deal with the issues. Since she had not seen the leaked memorandum, she would not hold a meeting on it without due processes being followed. She asked what was the intention of the ANC. She suggested that the discussion be brought to an end.

The Chairperson replied that this was the first time the Committee was able to get a report from the Board, since the issues in the memorandum had not been disputed. It was also important not to follow media rumors. It was within the rights of the Committee to discuss this issue. It was essentially linked to good corporate governance.

Adv P Swart (DA) mentioned that if the Board had agreed on the memorandum, there would not have been a revised version. He added that he thought the leakage was planned. He asked if the Board Chairperson had ensured that that the rights of the CEO and management had been ensured by allowing them to respond in a timeous manner. The leak had happened approximately three weeks ago and the CEO had been left at the mercy of the media.

Mr Pieterse asked why the CEO was not handed the document after the Board meeting. There was no indication from the Board Chairperson when the CEO would receive the document.

Mr Kholwane referred to Adv Swart’s comments and asked for a timeline for the sequence of events. He asked if there was a motive. The issue of the leakage was unfortunate and breached the integrity of the Board.

Ms Yengeni asked what had motivated the Chairperson to write the memorandum. She found the sequence of the events was interesting.

Ms Mkonza replied that memorandum had stated what had been the motivation and the process that they were engaged in internally. It was based on her assessment within the three-month period they had been on the Board.

The Chairperson viewed the leakage of the document as serious. It was important that an investigation be conducted as it could be construed as misconduct.

Mr Mpofu thanked those for the opportunity to respond. As yet he had not been given the opportunity to respond. His assessment of the memorandum that he also received via the internet was that it contained serious factual inaccuracies. He added that it was defamatory. He had asked for the memorandum the Monday after the leak from the Board and he has yet to receive it or the revised version. He thought that the way the investigation was conducted was important as he was interested in who leaked the document. The issues of performance were important. There were ways to deal with performance in the country. He could not comment on whether it was a planned leak. However, when the leak had happened, Board members had been able to comment. The memorandum raised fundamental issues about the governance of the SABC and other issues that had come to his attention. He felt that a proper enquiry would unveil everything. He wanted an opportunity to face his accusers and refute their claims. The SABC described in the memorandum was different to the SABC that had good staff reviews, improvements and a clear strategy.

Mr Sipho Sithole (SABC: Head of Strategy) had sat on several Boards in both private and public institutions and this was the first time he had gone through such an experience. He had gone through a similar experience with another Board that dealt with a leak. He was worried about the procedure regarding the leaked memorandum. They could only have a fair assessment of performance if the sub-committees that run the Board came to the same conclusion. He was also told that he could not speak to the Board directly.

Ms Phumele Ntombela-Nzimande (SABC) felt obliged to inform the Committee of the executive position. The executive had met after the leak to discuss the situation and decided to request a meeting with the Board. The response had been that there was no crisis and the Board would meet one on one with the group executive. She thought it was unfortunate because if they had had an interaction with the Board, they would have approached the Committee as a united organisation. They would have been able to give collective answers to the issues that had been leaked to the media. The unwillingness of the Board to engage with management was unfortunate.

Ms Yengeni told management that if they had issues to raise they should speak freely as there would be no ramifications.

Ms Qunta thought that it was important to correct an important aspect. The Chairperson of the Board had not received any requests from management for meetings. There was an arrangement set up with the previous Board on engagement with management. The Chairperson had agreed that they would meet with the group executive members. They viewed the group executive as important but there was a structured way of engagement.

The Chairperson indicated that whatever was stated in the Committee meeting was privileged and they would be protected.

Ms Mampane did not think it would be productive for the Board and management to go back and forth. She respectfully requested that the issues and the memorandum be given to the CEO and that he be given an opportunity to respond.

Mr Andile Mbeki (SABC: Board member) agreed saying that integrity of the corporation would always be of the utmost importance. He asked that the process be allowed to unfold.

Mr Mpofu mentioned that he had to lead management of a corporation made up of 4000 people. There was a serious problem, since almost four weeks had passed and yet management had still not received the memorandum. It was not an issue that could just be glanced over. It was not true that the Chairperson was not aware of the requests for a meeting, as he had alerted her to issues of role clarification and asked for a meeting. That meeting had not happened. After the leak had happened, he had asked for a meeting to deal with the issue and had received a negative reply. They were frustrated but if there was an unwillingness to meet, then proper functions could not be carried out. This was a problem that had to be resolved immediately.

The Chairperson understood and agreed that the matter should be resolved.

Mr Kholwane reiterated his question about the sequence of events and requested a ten-minute break.

Mr Mpofu replied that on the 14th April a meeting with the committee of three did not take place. On the 24th April he was called in and he was told that there would be a process rather than an investigation.

Mr Khumalo noted that there were many contradictions. On the 4th April the memorandum was drafted, on the 9th April there was a meeting, on the 14th there was a leak and on the 29th and 30th there was supposed to be a strategic meeting. He was not certain that there was a proper strategy.

Ms Qunta mentioned the memorandum and the process for which they had received legal advice. There had been no intention from the Board to deprive management and the CEO of an opportunity to respond. There were many factual inaccuracies from the CEO and she preferred not to go into those inaccuracies.

The Chairperson allowed for the ANC to break for ten minutes for a caucus.

After the caucus break, Mr Kholwane stated the position of the ANC. They had requested the caucus because of the memorandum and the views of the Board and responses of the management. It was clear that the there were serious challenges between the Board and the management of the SABC. From the date of the memorandum up until now, the matter had not been resolved. They were of the view that a corporation such as the SABC could not have a fall-out between the Board and management. It was unacceptable. The issue of the leak at the level of the Board was a serious matter. Surely the Board had been given enough time to give a sufficient explanation. The ANC was convinced that the Board was not in a position to execute its fiduciary responsibilities and therefore the ANC passed a vote of no confidence in the Board. Due processes would follow. Therefore they would not have to discuss the Strategic and the Budget Plan of the SABC until the processes had been followed.

Ms Smuts informed the Chairperson that Adv Swart and herself of the Democratic Alliance would have to leave the meeting. She felt that there was no basis for the actions of the ANC. It was an attempt to unseat the whole Board, when it was these same committee members that had voted them in. She believed that it was an abuse of the parliamentary system since the matter was not properly tabled. It seemed as if there was a type of an inquisition that had taken place. That was not procedural. She recognised that there were battles within the ANC and that the Chairperson was under political pressure, but the procedures of Parliament should not be used to resolve those battles.

Ms Vos noted the importance of the matter and informed the Committee that she would have to consult with her party, the Inkatha Freedom Party.

The Chairperson noted that the majority in the Committee took it as an expression of opinion and that it would have to report to the National Assembly where it would be debated and then decide on the next step.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • 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: