SABC Blacklisting Report: briefing

COMMUNICATIONS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
30 October 2006
SABC BLACKLISTING REPORT: BRIEFING

Acting Chairperson: Mr G Oliphant (ANC)

Documents handed out:
SABC Presentation on Sisulu Commission of Enquiry 30 October 2006

Other relevant documents:
SABC Commission of Enquiry into Blacklisting and Related Matters (Sisulu Commission) Report

SUMMARY
The Chairperson of the South African Broadcasting Corporation briefed the Committee on the background behind and reasons for the Sisulu Commission of Enquiry set up by the Corporation into Blacklisting and Related Matters. The Commission of Enquiry was set up to establish the facts behind various allegations that certain journalists were being unfairly excluded from making comment, and to decide upon a number of other issues concerning the guidelines, policies, procedures and practices of the SABC. A full history of the matter leading to the Commission being convened was given. The report of the Commission had been finalised and presented to the SABC Board on 2 October. The Board, having considered the report, had decided not to release the Report at that time, and set up an ad hoc committee to consider it further. The report was leaked to the press, and on 12 October Business Day reported on it. On 14 October the Mail and Guardian put out a report and also put the report up on their website. SABC sought to interdict them but the application was refused. A report was published by SABC on 22 October. The Board had then decided to refer the matter to Adv Mpofu for a decision on what further action should be taken and the matter was still under consideration. Adv Mpofu discussed some of the findings of the Report, in particular in regard to the terms of reference of the Commission, and its comments on the SABC policy, and confirmed that although some shortcomings had been identified, important recommendations had resulted and SABC was in a strong and unbiased position. Some Members commented that it was necessary to look at the SABC’s news department, and remained concerned about issues raised. Others believed it was doing good work. The Board noted that there had been rigorous debate, but confirmed, in answer to a question, that the decision to withhold publication was unanimous. Members asked what plans were in place to overcome shortcomings, and asked for clarification on the status of journalists and commentators. Most members expressed appreciation of the Corporation’s work.

MINUTES
The Acting Chairperson reported that he had asked the South African Broadcasting Commission to appear in order to give the Committee an appraisal and understanding of the facts in order to reach some clarity.

Mr Sonwabo Eddie Funde, Chairperson of the Board, South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), introduced the members of the delegation, and gave an introduction to the presentation. The Commission of Enquiry (“the Sisulu Commission”) had been set up by Advocate Dali Mpofu, the SABC Group Chief Executive Officer, to establish the facts of various allegations and to decide upon a number of issues; namely whether guidelines had existed in respect of the use of independent political consultants, whether they amounted to blacklisting, whether there had been remarks by SABC employees, and to examine morale and whether SABC followed best practice.

Advocate Dali Mpofu, Group CEO, SABC reported that in May 2006 SABC, at a Board and Exco Strategy meeting, had discussed the News Strategy, and a presentation given had included guidelines for commentators on radio and television news. Discussion in the News Room on the draft document had then been picked up by The Sowetan newspaper, which, on 20 June 2006, published an article alleging that SABC had gagged certain black commentators and had effectively blacklisted them from reporting. The SABC denied that there was a policy on blacklisting, and The Sowetan published a follow up article.  On 21 June SAFM held an interview with Mr Kganyago, a spokesman for SABC, and the presenter John Perlman, in direct contradiction to Mr Kganyago, stated that the system of exclusion was already in practice. This led to various allegations and counter allegations from independent journalists, and it was considered necessary by SABC to establish a Commission of Enquiry. A press statement was issued on 24 June. The terms of reference were set on 29 June.

When the Commission convened, Adv Mpofu, John Perlman (SAfm presenter), Dr Snuki Zikalala (Group Executive: News and Current Affairs, SABC), and 35 others gave evidence. Eleven of the evidentiary hearings were held in camera. Four statements were issued communicating progress. In mid-September 2006, the Commission was asked to complete its work. On 2 October Adv Mpofu received the Commission’s document, including 2000 pages of evidence. He communicated with the Chairman. On 4 October Adv Mpofu gave his report and impressions to the Board, which unanimously decided not to release the Report, and set up an ad hoc committee of five to consider it further. That committee met on 11 October 2006.

The Group CEO presented a statement. The Business Day of 12 October Anton Harber wrote an article to the effect that Mr Zikalala had been found to have contravened the editorial code. He stated that his report was based on second hand information, and that two of his sources had read the report. Mr Mpofu was reported as having dismissed Mr Harber’s allegations as inaccurate. The article was followed by an interview of SAFM, and a statement was released, with a summary of findings and recommendations. 

On 13 October 2006 The Mail & Guardian reported on the contents of the Commission’s report and on 14 October it published the Report on its website. SABC sought an interdict against Mail & Guardian’s but this was dismissed. Adv Mpofu completed his reading of the evidence by 18 October 2006, asked Mr Perlman and Dr Zikalala for a written explanation on 19 October. On 22 October an article appeared City Press explaining that it had been decided to institute “second stage disciplinary proceedings” against Dr Zikalala.

Adv Mpofu then went on to discuss some of the findings in the Report. He quoted from the Commission’s report that its proceedings were not a trial. It was limited to investigating the matters in its terms of reference. Although the core findings were based on undisputed evidence, there nonetheless remained many disputes of fact. He stated that the SABC considered itself was the most distinctive, all-inclusive and diverse news organisation in South Africa, and believed that it was its duty to provide excellent and relevant information and analysis. He quoted from the editorial policy that formed part of the Commission’s investigation, and explained that there was nothing to prevent SABC from having a policy on selection and use of commentators and analysts. Nobody who appeared before the Commission had suggested that this was incorrect. Advocate Mpofu stressed that these policies were clearly aimed at ensuring quality and consistency with SABC’s mandate. 

Adv Mpofu stated that the Commission had stated that it did not consider that it was the Commission’s task to prescribe whom the SABC should use as analysts or commentators. It was merely assessing whether the decisions to use or exclude journalists were in line with the mandate and polices. It had found “a disturbing variance” in several cases.” The Commission had also considered the procedures followed and had found that some critical editorial decisions on utilisation of certain people as commentators or analysts were taken away from editorial staff. The Commission had further found that sometimes editorial staff had not received adequate explanations why analysts or commentators had been excluded. This led to a lowering of morale. However, evidence was apparently also produced that Dr Zikalala had taken active steps to improve the quality of reporting, was passionate and committed and led by example

Adv Mpofu explained that the decision to issue the media statements was made recognising the need to balance public accountability and transparency, the views of the Commissioners, the constitutional rights of both the witnesses and the implicated SABC staff, and the fact that this was an independent and internal enquiry. SABC had finally concluded that the key findings and recommendations of the report should be publicised. The Board had therefore requested Adv Mpofu to take whatever steps he thought were appropriate, to investigate the practicality of the Commission’s recommendations, and to investigate how those recommendations could enhance the functions of the SABC for public benefit.

Adv Mpofu stated that the whole event had been subject to “media frenzy” and “selective reporting”, which he considered unfortunate. It was clear that appropriate corrective action would be taken, with due regard to  the Constitution and the Labour Relations Act. SABC had been depicted as on the brink of collapse. This was untrue. Some serious shortcomings had been identified, but important recommendations had been made. The report related to only one radio station and programme. No black list or blanket ban was found. It was also found by the Commission that there was no particular political bias nor an attitude to the Presidential succession debate. The Commission had found that the media had distorted the issue. Overall performance and credibility was high, SABC exceeded its targets and minimum standards, and had shown record profit growth. Finally he stressed that he, as Group CEO and with his twenty years of Labour Law experience, was dealing with the matter.

Mr Funde commented that Adv Mpofu’s presentation was completely accurate. The Board of SABC had confidence in its executives, and in particular in the extensive labour law experience of Adv Mpofu.

Discussion
 Ms D Smuts (DA) was concerned at what she understood to be a comment by Adv Mpofu that the Mail & Guardian was right-wing. She said that the Sisulu Commission’s findings were based on undisputed facts. The facts of the situation had vindicated Mr Perlman. Dr Zikalala was the subject of a textbook An introduction to responsible journalism and there were certain findings by the Commission on his actions. It was necessary to examine the SABC’s News and Current Affairs Department.

Adv Mpofu commented that members of opposition parties, having visited the SABC, had told him that they had gained good perspective of a complex organisation. SABC had taken the decision to withhold the report as the whole process was sub judice and therefore it had considered itself to be acting in the interests of all concerned. The issue was not a simple one. There had to be weighing of interests. In deciding to withhold publication of the Commission’s report, the Board was protecting a process. Because of the “media frenzy”, some who had given evidence in camera were no longer willing to give further evidence. The SABC Board had referred the matter back to the Group CEO . Consideration of Mr Perlman’s actions was a matter quite apart from the truth or otherwise of his statements. One could consider the hypothetical analogy of a political party member who brought the party into disrepute by breaching a disciplinary code relating to comment on the leader of the party.

Professor Allison Gilwald, SABC Board Member, said that there had been rigorous debate on the matter, and not all members of the Board had shared the same views.

Mr R Pieterse (ANC) expressed his thanks to the Commission and to the Board. It was necessary to hear all views even if one disagreed with them. It was desirable to widen the pool of commentators. Since 1994 all universities had been nurturing commentators. He believed that this incident should not be allowed to overshadow the good work done by the SABC. He believed that it was not in the interests of staff morale to pursue the matter much further. He praised the good work coming from the newsroom.

Mr Funde confirmed that there had been rigorous and robust debate at the SABC Board. The Board and Management already had a difficult task and this was compounded when other media attempted to micro-manage SABC. It fully accepted the principles of freedom of the Press. However, the Board wished to stress that the Sisulu Commission was essentially an internal inquiry.

Adv Mpofu said that no final decision had yet been taken on the next steps to be taken. He would rather not comment on his own situation. As far as the Board was concerned, the question of who could be used as commentators was over, and he said that nobody had the automatic right to be appointed as a commentator.

Mr K Khumalo (ANC) believed that the actions of Mr John Perlman had been incorrect. He thought that it was necessary to engage with him. He was also very concerned about the “leak” of the Commission’s report. He believed it was necessary to broaden the range of commentators. 

Adv Mpofu said that a geographical spread of commentators was part of the Board’s policy. The Board also had a policy of calling upon those commentators best qualified to handle a particular subject, although in emergency reports – such as reports on disasters - it was usual to call upon the commentator in closest proximity to the event. 

Adv P Swart (DA) asked if was a unanimous decision by the Board that the Commission’s Report should not be released. He also asked who was supposed to have taken the decisions on which journalists could be used and which excluded.

Adv Mpofu replied that the Board had taken a unanimous decision not to release the Report. He further said that it was necessary to empower the staff of the SABC, and that those concerned should take responsibility for their decisions.

Professor Gilwald elaborated on Adv Mpofu’s response, stating that the decision was rather that the report should not be released at that particular time, due to the processes that were still under way.

Mr V Gore (ID) said that the SABC was a national asset. The print media used “Emotive words” as they promoted sale of newspapers. He asked whether it was by design or default that some journalists had been excluded. He further asked if there were shortcomings in the SABC and, if so, whether there was there a plan to overcome them. He warned against self-censorship. He also asked if SABC commentators were considered as employees or as independent journalists.

Adv Mpofu commented that it was necessary to work further on the editorial guidelines to achieve a balance. SABC commentators were both employees and journalists. There had been no plan to exclude anyone, since it was the Board’s aim to protect talent and it recognised that it was dealing with human beings. No decision had been taken to exclude anyone, but if mistakes were made, they had to be corrected. It was “an internal process”.

Ms L Yengeni (ANC) said that the crux of the matter was that the SABC was viewed by some members of the public as the voice of the ruling party.

Adv Mpofu replied that if there was a legitimate complaint against a public broadcaster, the SABC’s preferred response was to be neutral, to attend to the facts supported by statistics, and to call upon an outsider to verify the facts. He said that he had no regrets about the way in which he had handled the matter.

The Acting Chairperson said that everyone was liable to make mistakes. The question was how one should correct such mistakes. He hoped that reporting would be very accurate.

Ms Smuts made a comment that there was political bias in the Sea Point office of the SABC.

The Acting Chairperson thanked the Chairperson and members of the SABC Board for the manner in which they had handled the matter. Having now dealt with this matter, it would not cloud the discussions on the Annual Report due to be held the following day.

The meeting was adjourned.