The court rejected the public broadcaster’s argument that Hlaudi Motsoeneng’s appointment was an internal matter, and not an exercise of public power that could be challenged in court.

It dismissed with costs the SABC’s application for leave to appeal its earlier ruling on Motsoeneng’s appointment as group executive of corporate affairs.

The court ruled in December that his appointment was unlawful and that he could not hold any position at the broadcaster, unless a Public Protector’s 2014 report on his appointment as chief executive officer was overturned, or a new disciplinary inquiry cleared him.

The Democratic Alliance, which brought the initial application against the SABC, welcomed the ruling.

“This is a victory for the rule of law and a positive step toward restoring the integrity and independence of the SABC,” said party chairperson James Selfe.

Judges unimpressed

Last week, Stephan du Toit, for the SABC, had argued that the public had no interest in the staffing of the public broadcaster.

Judges Andre Le Grange and Owen Rogers differed in their ruling.

“The procurement of services and goods by public bodies undoubtedly constitutes administrative action… it is common cause that the SABC is a public body which exists in the public interest.”

They found there was no reasonable prospect of another court reaching different conclusions.

Judges not impressed with SABC’s argument

Du Toit had also argued that the judgment would set an important precedent, opening up the floodgates for court challenges.

“It would allow, in future, outsiders to interfere with the employment policies of any state department or any organ of state,” he said at the time.

The judges said they were not impressed with this argument.

“In practical reality, political parties, public interest groups and other outsiders pick their fights carefully.”

They said judgments that followed these reviews most often enhanced the quality and transparency of procurement decisions.

On Motsoeneng’s new disciplinary inquiry, the court was informed by the SABC’s attorneys in January that all, but the DA, had agreed on the new initiator.

“Although the person previously agreed upon as the new chairperson was unavailable to take up the appointment, we were given the name of another person as the new chairperson.”

The court said it was inclined to leave it to the new interim SABC board, which would hopefully be appointed soon, to determine the new chairperson and initiator of the latest disciplinary inquiry against Motsoeneng. DM