So Many Questions: on SABC inquiry chairman Vincent Smith

Despite parliament’s adoption of the report of the ad hoc inquiry into the SABC, President Jacob Zuma said he would not fire minister Faith Muthambi. Chris Barron asked inquiry chairman Vincent Smith . . .

Muthambi says MPs in the inquiry ambushed her?

Yes, I am trying to understand that.

Is it because MPs have never held a minister to account like that before?

Yes, absolutely.

She wants a judicial review of your report. Should she pay for it?

Yes, if she wants a judicial review she must pay for it.

story_article_left1

Out of her own pocket?

Well, absolutely.

She says her department will pay for it.

That's what she says. If it were up to me it would be paid out of her pocket. I don't see why it should be paid for from parliament because she feels she's been treated unfairly as an individual.

She says you never provided her with proper details of the allegations against her?

I think everybody saw how we went through our processes. So I don't understand what she means.

Why should she be fired?

I never said she should be fired, and nor did the committee say that.

What did you mean when you recommended that Zuma reconsider her position?

We were saying that there was a task to be done, we think it could have been done differently, and therefore there must be an evaluation of her work.

Do you believe she should be fired?

What I'm saying is that I can't, as the ad hoc committee or as parliament, take over the role that is constitutionally the role of the president. Ours is to say, "We've done an investigation, this is the evidence, Mr President, look at it."

You've done more than that, haven't you? You've made a clear recommendation.

And the recommendation is, "Mr President, look at the facts that are before you and do what you think is relevant." Without necessarily saying he must do one thing or the other.

The recommendation is that Zuma "seriously reconsider the desirability of this minister retaining the communications portfolio".

Correct.

story_article_right2

Isn't that the same as saying he should consider removing her?

Yes, you could read it that way.

Your report details the collapse of governance at the SABC.

Correct.

Is there any way she can remain the political head of the SABC after a report like this?

The point I'm making is that that's not my call.

So why did you make the recommendation?

Because we have, if you looked at the evidence of our report, made observations of certain things that the shareholder representative could have done differently.

Parliament has adopted the report, hasn't it?

Yes.

With this recommendation?

Yes.

So is the president, by refusing to act on this recommendation, defying parliament?

Ours are recommendations, and our powers as parliament are persuasive as opposed to binding. So the president has the prerogative of accepting, rejecting or noting our recommendations.

Can there be effective oversight when the executive ignores recommendations that parliament has adopted?

That question needs to be responded to in the context of the separation of powers. Parliament as an equal organ of state cannot dictate to other organs of state.

Doesn't it make a mockery of the whole concept of oversight and accountability if the executive is free to ignore the recommendations of an oversight committee after parliament has adopted those recommendations?

No, I don't think so. Because ultimately the electorate, having observed how the executive behaves, has the right to change the executive at the next election.

Is there tension between the new spirit of oversight we saw in your committee and the executive?

No. That is the result of a decision taken at a lekgotla some time ago. We took a decision that parliament has to reassert itself. The ANC generally, both the executive and the legislative parts, are in one accord because this is a resolution of the ANC. So there's no tension whatsoever.

story_article_left3

So the executive is fully supportive of parliament playing its oversight role?

It's not about the executive being supportive, it's about the whole ANC being supportive.

So if the whole ANC supports parliament's oversight role, how can the executive treat a recommendation that has been adopted by parliament with contempt?

I don't know. I'm telling you what the ANC resolution is saying.

You've said you believe your report will ensure there is no repetition (of the SABC debacle).

If it's implemented.

And if the minister stays?

Even if the minister stays it will be moving in the right direction. If the board does what it is supposed to do.

What if board appointments remain political?

That is why we said they must be transparent and open and there must be due consideration given to quality and skill.