It is increasingly apparent that the current SABC board is not fit to run the public broadcaster.
In the wake of the SABC’s commission of inquiry into allegations of blacklisting, public attention has focused mainly on the conduct of the managing director of news, Snuki Zikalala. In the process, our supposed public representatives, in the form of the SABC board, are being let off the hook.
According to the Broadcasting Act, the board controls the affairs of the corporation, and must protect its freedom of expression, journalistic, creative and programming independence. As part of its licence conditions, the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) also demands that SABC news and current affairs demonstrate impartiality, balance, independence and fairness.
The commission’s findings imply that by excluding various commentators on grounds that were not objectively defensible, Zikalala violated both the Act and the licence conditions.
The board must take ultimate responsibility for such violations. Instead, they released misleading press statements on the blacklisting saga, attempted to prevent the public release of the full report and expressed full confidence in Zikalala while reportedly attempting to discipline the whistle-blower, SAFM radio anchor John Perlman.
In terms of the Broadcasting Act, the board must consist of people who are “committed to fairness, freedom of expression, the right of the public to be informed and openness and accountability on the part of those holding public office”. They have failed to demonstrate such a commitment. Icasa should rule on these matters urgently, as these incidents could well be grounds for the impeachment of the board.
The transformation of the SABC was not supposed to be about replacing old-order propagandists with new-order ones; it was meant to change how journalism was practised.
There are several problems with how the board does its business. One is that the board is not independent of the minister of communications. The lines between the minister and the board, and between management and editorial, are hopelessly blurred.
The board cannot appoint the three top managers at the SABC without ministerial approval (termed “minister nominees” in the SABC’s articles of association). This includes the group CEO, who is also the SABC’s editor-in-chief. The board cannot approve its own strategic objectives, business plan, budget or training programme without the minister nominees having approved these documents. The minister must approve the board’s key performance areas and objectives. Independence is impossible in a situation where the board does not control its affairs.
The current appointment process, in which Parliament’s communications portfolio committee selects the board, and then appoints it on the advice of the National Assembly, also needs to be rethought. The process lends itself to horse trading and political patronage. Clearly, there are people on the current SABC board who are political appointees and who have expressed views that sit uncomfortably with the Broadcasting Act. The conflict-of-interest provision in the Act is far too weak.
An independent panel should select the board, with the panel itself being appointed after a public process. The board and the panel should represent the broad range of sectors that have an interest in the public broadcaster — from labour and business to religious and cultural groups. Some communities of interest should elect a limited number of board members directly, such as the SABC staff.
Mechanisms of direct access are also important. The board should be required to hold quarterly report-back meetings and should accede to requests for meetings if more than 100 signatures are presented in support of the request. Board minutes should be made publicly available, as is the case with the BBC, whose minutes are posted on its website.
The board’s term of office expires next year, so it is time for South Africa to think about how we can get a board that truly serves the public interest.
Jane Duncan is executive director of the Freedom of Expression Institute