On Tuesday MPs from across the party-political spectrum on the parliamentary communications committee agreed to involve Parliament’s chief whips’ forum, a consultative structure without decision-making powers, in the selection of the five interim SABC board members.

The two committees’ actions are intricately linked. The communications committee must appoint the interim SABC board of at least five members to serve for a maximum of six months and, ultimately, the permanent board. The SABC inquiry ad hoc committee’s hard-hitting draft recommendations centre on this interim board among other things to investigate financial mismanagement involving R5.1-billion irregular expenditure with a view to recoup misspent money, probe governance failures leading to the restoration of good governance, and take concrete steps to ensure editorial independence in the public interest.

The two committees’ actions are also reflective of the political machinations over the SABC. That the parliamentary SABC inquiry took off in the first place indicated pressures within the governing ANC as it faced a widespread public outcry over the ban of visuals of damage to property in Limpopo ahead of the 2016 local government elections. Matters escalated when the SABC sidestepped the order to reverse the ban by the regulator, the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa).

On November 3 the National Assembly adopted a resolution formally establishing the SABC inquiry, described as a win in the ANC factional battles for those opposed to years of turmoil at the public broadcaster and former Chief Operating Officer Hlaudi Motsoeneng’s rule there. There was pushback, sometimes personal, against ANC chief whip Jackson Mthembu, also head of the party’s national executive committee (NEC) communications sub-committee, who was among the first to speak out on correcting the turn taken by the SABC.

The parliamentary SABC inquiry is wrapping up its work and its finalised report will be sent to affected parties for comments, which will be processed before a polished final product is tabled in the National Assembly at the end of February. Now the communications committee must start its work.

But in a highly unusual move, the communication committee’s MPs from across the party-political spectrum on Tuesday decided to involve Parliament’s chief whips’ forum to help pave the political road to an interim SABC board. Parliamentary Rule 221 states that the chief whips’ forum is “for discussion and co-ordination of matters for which the whips are responsible” and “which the Speaker may consult when appropriate”. It sits behind closed doors as a rule; its first meeting of 2017 is scheduled for next Wednesday. In the parliamentary set-up a whip is a political party member appointed to ensure discipline among party members; a chief whip is the most senior in the parliamentary system to ensure that not only the party line is followed, but also with the responsibility to help ensure the smooth running of parliamentary sittings.

Parliament’s communication committee chairperson Humphrey Maxegwana told Daily Maverick the decision was one of fostering “political management”, not one abrogating the committee’s responsibility. The communication committee would still take the final decision, he said: “It’s a management process… The final say is the committee’s. We are going to reflect, discuss and agree on the five names”.

The multiparty committee has not stipulated whether the chief whips’ forum would forward only the five required names, or more potential candidates, or whether it would set a time line. However, Maxegwana said the matter was “urgent”.

The communications committee has a bittersweet track-record with regards to the SABC saga. As the parliamentary inquiry was looming, it met the SABC managers and Muthambi and publicly stated there was no need for such a probe.

In one of the last assertions of oversight the communications committee in late 2014 recommended Zuma fire then SABC chairperson Zandile Ellen Tshabalala for misrepresenting her qualifications. Tshabalala resigned instead in December that year.

Between May and June 2015 it reversed its initial decision that the removal of three board members under the Companies Act was unlawful. Since then it has failed to fill a total of six vacancies on the 12-strong non-executive board. The Broadcasting Act stipulates that the president appoints, suspends or dismisses board members on recommendation of Parliament.

Throughout its sittings the parliamentary SABC inquiry has maintained it was “not a super committee”. And so it has agreed that other responsible structures must do their duty to ensure the implementation of various recommendations that have been agreed to, and those still to be formally agreed to.

Aside from the investigations the interim SABC board must undertake, this would mean Parliament’s public enterprise committee should probe whether Ben Ngubane, whose testimony before the inquiry was slated as contradictory and unsatisfactory, should be permitted to continue as board boss at another parastatal, Eskom, given his role in the SABC saga. The Inspector-General for Intelligence could be asked to investigate the role of the State Security Agency (SSA) at the SABC, and report back not to the joint standing committee on intelligence, which as a rule sits behind closed doors, but to the communications committee.

The MPs on the SABC inquiry rely on these structures to do the right thing, and on Parliament’s communications committee to pick up the baton. If that does not happen – and Tuesday’s decision to involve the consultative political chief whips’ forum does not send an encouraging signal even if intentions may be good – all the parliamentary SABC inquiry’s transparency and hard work will come to naught. DM

Photo: African National Congress (ANC) Chief Whip Jackson Mthembu listens in Parliament, Cape Town, South Africa, 05 April 2016. EPA/NIC BOTHMA