Ramaphosa’s instruction to parliament labelled ‘grossly unlawful’

Parliament is reverting to the original list of candidates it nominated to serve on the SABC board, after a scathing legal opinion questioned President Cyril Ramaphosa’s temerity in second-guessing legislative processes.

This comes four months after parliament approved a list of 12 names to serve as non-executive members of the board.

The SABC has been without a board for almost six months.

After questioning the inclusion of a “reserve pool” of three names from which to select in the event any of the 12 preferred candidates were no longer available for appointment, Ramaphosa last month insisted the matter be referred to the portfolio committee on communications for urgent consideration.

He said he was confused because National Assembly speaker Nosiviwe MapisaNqakula and Boyce Maneli, chair of the portfolio committee, appeared to be contradicting each other on whether he could ignore the reserve pool or whether he could select from it. The matter was further complicated by a letter by then communications minister Khumbudzo Ntshavheni to Mapisa-Nqakula, questioning the inclusion of Phathiswa Magopeni, the SABC’s former head of news who was dismissed early last year, and with whom the SABC later settled.

The letter opened the door for ANC MPs to question Magopeni’s suitability, despite having been part of and having supported her initial inclusion.

On Thursday, the office of the state attorney affirmed parliament’s December 6 resolution as “legally sound” and “legally executable”.

Citing the Broadcasting Act, the legal opinion stated that the president must appoint the 12 non-executive members of the board on the advice of the National Assembly.

“What the opinion is saying is these are the 12 members the president must appoint.

“Those in the reserve pool cannot argue that they have a legitimate purpose to be appointed to the board,” Andile Tetyana, who presented the opinion to the committee on Thursday, said. He said Ramaphosa’s letter in which he instructed Mapisa-Nqakula to send the matter back to the committee had no basis in law.

“The letter is grossly unlawful. You can’t have a situation where parliament accounts to the president,” he said.

Tetyana said if the president felt that what parliament directed him to do was unlawful, he could approach the competent court and not take the law into his hands.

The committee welcomed the legal advice, with opposition MPs saying they were validated.

ANC MP Lesiba Molala said there was no need to further indulge the matter and that it had to be referred back to Ramaphosa for finalisation.