There have been a number of ill-informed and mischievous articles written in the aftermath of the arbitration hearing into the former Cricket South Africa (CSA) director of cricket Graeme Smith.
We recognise that as the governing body, CSA needs to be both accountable to the public and willing to accept criticism. However, any evaluation of how CSA has handled its responsibilities needs to be fair and accurate. In this respect, a full appreciation of the context, including the background facts and the sequence of specific events, is essential.
So, while it is true that Smith was exonerated of allegations of racism, and CSA unreservedly accepts the outcome, it seems that certain commentators now want to lay a high degree of blame at CSA’s doorstep for initiating this process. In doing so they either fail to understand the context or neglect to recognise the precise sequence of events.
These commentators completely ignore the key facts.
- First, the Social Justice and National Building (SJN) process was not initiated by this board but by a predecessor board in late 2020. The SJN process was conducted during the time of the present board, but was deliberately and for good reason run entirely independently of CSA and its board.
- Second, the commentators fail to take into account that in the SJN report of December 2021, the ombudsman, advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza SC, indicated that he was not in a position to make “definite findings” and specifically recommended that further processes be undertaken to fully address the allegations heard by him. Once that was so, the board was obliged to institute further formal inquiries into CSA employees, suppliers or contractors who were the subject of the “tentative findings” in the SJN report.
What precisely do the commentators say CSA should have done in the face of serious, albeit tentative, findings of racism against Smith and others? Is it really suggested that CSA should have ignored these tentative findings of racism or rejected them itself without a formal process?
To do so would have been a dereliction of duty and hugely counterproductive. It would have left hanging over the head of South African cricket serious but unresolved questions of racism. It would certainly not have been in Smith’s interests — which is no doubt why he welcomed the opportunity to clear his name via the arbitration — or in CSA’s interests or in the interests of South African cricket. Now there is clarity and, we hope, closure all round.
As we seek to direct and oversee the rebuilding of South African cricket and its governance, it is imperative that all necessary steps are taken to fix all that was once wrong and remains wrong with the game. We cannot simply ignore what has happened in the past and pretend that it did not happen, or sweep it under the carpet. If allegations have been made or evidence adduced about past wrongdoings, especially in relation to race discrimination, they must be addressed.
Equally, if any testimony has not been genuine and honest, we need to know that too. As a new broom, we know what we must sweep clean — the SJN and the follow-up inquiries will help us determine what action needs to be taken for the long-term good of the game. Hence, it is important that any independent inquiry first tests all allegations before any question of sanction can arise — and that is precisely what has happened in Smith’s case.
Due process has protected him and his rights, while also safeguarding the reform and rebuilding process that we are leading. For example, both the SJN report and the arbitration award in Smith’s case raised concerns regarding the process of appointing national coaches. We are now armed with the requisite facts to fix this for the future, in line with our mandate to ensure cricket is run with the highest standards of governance and ethics.
By the same token, no one can deny that genuine stories of hurt and discrimination were shared at the SJN hearings. Who could forget Omar Henry’s harrowing tales of being shunned during apartheid, of how he was ostracised from coloured cricket structures for daring to watch cricket at a white ground, of his pain at non-selection as the only non-white player at the 1991 World Cup. He wasn’t the only one discriminated against. Some of the structural challenges relating to the treatment, accommodation and support of up-and-coming provincial cricketers were telling, so too were claims of isolation and loneliness, racist name-calling and songs, and a lack of facilities for young black players.
This is why CSA’s new board has a moral and ethical duty to see this process through — whatever criticisms might be advanced against it — and we are glad we did. To have failed to do so would have caused great harm. Commentators need to weigh this consideration carefully in the balance.
Articles which now use the Smith arbitration award to claim CSA must be “punished” because it “badly manhandled” (sic) the SJN and “hounded” him out of his job completely miss the point and are factually wrong and unfair.
Any employer focused on what is best for their organisation has a responsibility at a minimum to investigate serious allegations against their employees. The consequences for doing nothing far outweigh taking active steps to investigate such serious allegations, especially when made against senior employees. Merely initiating such a process can never be equated to a “witch-hunt”, or “hounding” that employee — not least because a sanction such as dismissal would only arise if the allegations are found to be true. That was the whole idea behind the process.
This is especially so when CSA took such pains to appoint highly skilled and credible independent advocates — such as Ngwako Maenetje SC and Michael Bishop — to conduct the Smith arbitration. The appointment of such persons makes it absolutely clear that there was and is no “witch-hunt” or attempt to “manhandle” anything.
Lastly, while it is true that Smith’s fixed-term contract came to an end at the end of March 2022, this would have been the case even without the SJN process and arbitration — that was the termination date of the contract as signed. Smith was entitled to seek to reapply for the position, but elected not to because understandably, after more than two years in the job, he wanted to seek new challenges in the commercial and cricket worlds. As CSA has made clear in the days since the arbitration award, we very much hope that he will still work in the cricket world in appropriate capacities going forward.
The repeated attempts to diminish the value of the SJN process indicate a lack of understanding of the genuine hurt and trauma faced by many black players within the cricket system in the past. Those experiences only surfaced publicly via the difficult process of conducting open and fair hearings through the SJN hearings. This is an essential element of the context, which is often conspicuous by its absence in some of the recent commentary and news reporting.
The process of conducting open and fair hearings through the SJN hearings was an important building block in a root and branch rewiring of South African cricket. Indeed, it was long overdue. It is equally imperative the follow-up processes are impartial and respected so implicated parties can be heard and their defence tested in a fair way.
However difficult certain aspects of the SJN may have been, this was a necessary initiative to address and rectify the misdeeds and tribulations of the past, to steer the game of cricket to be inclusive and accessible to all and to thus make this a game we can all be proud of. DM