The letter was sent from the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu), FXI, Media Workers' Association of South Africa (MWASA), the National Council of Trade Unions (NACTU), the South African Chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA-SA), the South African NGO Coalition (SANGOCO) and the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC).
The organisations argued in the letter that, as representatives of the labour movement and civil society, they do not believe that the list of nominees fulfils the requirement of s.13(4) of the Broadcasting Act.
According to s.13(4)(a), the board, when viewed collectively, should consist of persons who are suited to serve on the board by virtue of their qualifications, expertise and experience in the fields of broadcasting policy and technology, broadcasting regulation, media law, frequency planning, business practice and finance, marketing, journalism, entertainment and education, and social and labour issues.
Their first objection in this regard is that there is a clear bias in the list towards business figures; at least five of the nominees fall into this category (Andile Mbeki, Gloria Serobe, Desmond Golding, Bheki Khumalo and Peter Vundla). In contrast, there are no names on the list who could be said to have qualifications, expertise and experience in labour and social issues; this is in spite of the fact that nominees from the labour movement were forwarded for consideration.
Their second objection in this regard is that there is no-one on the list who is a practising journalist, or has been a practising journalist recently. While there is a fair spread of people who have qualifications, expertise and experience in broadcasting policy and technology (such as Alison Gilwald and Khanyi Mkhonza), broadcasting regulation (such as Alison Gilwald and Nadia Bulbulia) and law (Christine Qunta, Pansy Tlakula and Ashwin Trikamjee), this does not amount to fulfilling this requirement.
This means that the list does not have the collective qualifications, expertise and experience as required by the act.
In addition, the organisations believe that the board does not represent a broad cross-section of the population, as required by s. 13(4)(c) of the act. There are clearly no working class representatives, nor are there any representatives from the communities of interest mentioned above (namely journalism and labour). “The Board is obviously what President Mbeki would refer to as a “first economy” Board; it does not represent the totality of the South African populace, and especially has no representation from South Africa's poor and marginalised communities – the ”second economy”,” said the statement.
Another objection is that six members of the old SABC board – namely Fadila Lagadien, Christine Qunta, Alison Gilwald, Ashwin Trikamjee, Andile Mbeki and Khanyisile Mkhonza – have been included in the list and thus stand to be re-appointed to the new board:
“The incumbent Board has presided over unacceptable incidents of unfairness and censorship. More specifically, the Board has responded inappropriately to the findings of the Sisulu Commission of Enquiry into allegations of blacklisting of political commentators. The Commission found that a number of commentators were excluded on grounds that were not objectively defensible, in violation of the Board's own editorial policies.
“In spite of the damning nature of the report, the Board expressed its full confidence in the person responsible for the exclusions, Managing Director of SABC News, Snuki Zikalala, while allegedly issuing the ‘whistleblower' in the incident, SAFM news anchor John Perlman, with a warning in spite of the fact that he was vindicated by the Commission.
“The SABC also attempted to interdict the Mail & Guardian newspaper to force it to take down a copy of the Commission's findings from its website. The Johannesburg High Court dismissed this attempt, noting that it was not acceptable to suppress information written in the report. These are not the actions of a group of people who are committed to fairness, freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.”The organisations especially concerned about the prospect of Christine Qunta being appointed chairperson of the board. In her existing capacity as deputy chairperson, she has presided over the problems mentioned above, and has defended the board's actions publicly, including in her individual capacity in her interview with the Portfolio Committee on Communications.
Continued the statement, “If recent media reports are accurate, one of the people on the list, Gloria Serobe, wilfully lied to the Portfolio Committee on Communications. When interviewed by the Committee, she was allegedly asked whether she knew the person who had nominated her, a Mr Louis du Plooy. She allegedly replied that she did not know him but it was "sweet" of him to have done so. However, according to the Sunday Times (16 September 2007) Mr du Plooy “revealed […] that he had discussed Serobe's nomination with her 'as I had to get a CV from her to submit with the nomination form'”. If these media reports are accurate, Serobe misled the Committee, thus demonstrating contempt for parliament and disqualifying her from being appointed to the Board on the basis that she has subverted the public's right to be informed.
“We are also mindful of recent public controversies, where allegations have been made of a list being imposed on the Portfolio Committee on Communications by the African National Congress (ANC), which – if it proves to be true – could amount to political manipulation of what was meant to be an open and transparent process.
“We believe that, when taken together, all these factors are sufficient grounds for a review of the existing list, as a pall has now been cast over the credibility of the entire process. If the people whose names appear on the current list are appointed, the pall will hang over the SABC for the next five years, which may do untold damage to the broadcaster,” concluded the statement.
