Chris Barron

What bothers you about this? First, the manner in which it was made. It was an ad hoc decision made off the top of his head, a declaration, in fact, by Motsoeneng, without consulting the SABC staff responsible for managing things like playlists, DJs, station managers. Second is whether the SABC engaged its listeners around this matter. Is it under any obligation to do so? The SABC is not a state broadcaster controlled from the minister’s office. Nor is it Motsoeneng’s own spaza shop where he can decide what to stock and whether to remove one product for another. It is a public broadcaster owned by the people of South Africa. What does the Broadcasting Act say? It is clear on this. The SABC has to establish and conduct regular advisory procedures around communicating with its audiences around the kind of content it is producing. As far as we know, it hasn’t undertaken any kind of public consultation. So can it be challenged in terms of the Broadcasting Act? Not directly. More in terms of the rationality of the decision and where the authority for Motsoeneng to make these decisions comes from. Our suspicion is that he’s drawn this authority from the revised editorial policy passed in February under cover of darkness. We are preparing a complaint to Icasa [the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa] around its unlawfulness because of procedural irregularities. So he has no right to be making these decisions about local content, 70% good news and not broadcasting violent protests? No, not at all. Being the operations officer he is exclusively confined to ensuring that the business operation of the SABC is working soundly. Not to be making editorial decisions in this manner. He unlawfully revised the editorial policy to establish himself as the editor-in-chief of the SABC and is now making these absurd decisions. How has he got away with this? He and the SABC board colluded. And the minister? Perhaps they colluded together. Because she has given herself power over the board, hasn’t she? Certainly, yes. But as far as editorial is concerned, the final arbiters are the editor-in-chief, being the CEO, in consultation with the board. Where has the CEO been in all this? Nowhere, because the editorial policy was revised to make Motsoeneng, who reports to the CEO, the final arbiter on editorial decisions. This is the absurdity of it all. The SABC is now operating in a lawless, chaotic, cowboy sort of way. And the rest of us are frozen in the headlights? Well, on the banning of footage of protests involving the destruction of property, we have taken it up with Icasa to have that decision overturned. We are preparing an urgent complaint on the 2016 revised editorial policies to have them struck down, and all decisions that drew their authority from these policies to be overturned as well. Will Icasa do anything? They have no choice. It’s a very strong case. This is a substantial violation of the SABC’s licensing conditions and the statutory provisions governing it. Do you have confidence in Icasa’s independence? We have to. These are the constitutional institutions that have been set in place, we have to rely on them to work. If they fail us we must take it to higher courts, particularly the Constitutional Court, to compel them to act independently and enforce the laws and regulations governing the SABC. How much time will you give them? In urgent applications of this kind there has to be a ruling within seven days. And especially with this being a local government election year, if the complaints have any bearing on election coverage, which they do, then the matter has to be dealt with as quickly as possible. If there is no ruling within seven days? Then we take it to the high court on an urgent basis to compel Icasa to make a ruling, or make the ruling on Icasa’s behalf and compel it to be enforced. The high court has ruled that Motsoeneng’s appointment as chief operating officer was unlawful, and his appeal against that has been rejected. Should he even be at the SABC at all? Strictly speaking, no. But the board and the minister have decided to ignore the court ruling, protecting him at significant expense as far as court battles are concerned, and the national interest. Is 90% local content financially sustainable for the SABC? No. We know that the SABC struggles to pay, or doesn’t pay at all, music royalties. And we know he has increased the royalties from 3% to 4%, which the SABC does not appear to be able to afford. At the moment it is barely able to pay its creditors and employees. Watch this space for another government bailout. The minister of finance has made it clear he won’t continue to do this, so where do you see it ending? The truth is, if the SABC finds itself bankrupt again, there is no option but another government guarantee, which will lead to another bailout.