Pay-back time for SABC lawyers

Law firm was obstructionist, gave bad advice and wasted taxpayers’ money by delaying inquiry

THE law firm which advised the SABC on the parliamentary inquiry into its affairs could be in hot water when the ad hoc committee meets today.

The ad hoc committee is expected to discuss, among other things, action to be taken against the attorneys, which advised the board and former board chairperson Mbulaheni Maguvhe.

Even the parliamentary legal team is expected to give advice, which can be pursued by the institution against the law firm.

Committee chairperson Vincent Smith said not only was bad legal advice given to the board by the law firm, but they were “obstructionist”.

“I need you to give us some advice on it.

“I made an undertaking at the time that they owe parliament big time. It’s pay-back time,” Smith said.

Maguvhe had attempted to interdict the committee on the advice of the law firm, but failed when the Western Cape High Court ruled against him and ordered him to personally pay for the legal costs.

In one of the letters sent to the committee, the SABC lawyers indicated the public broadcaster would co-operate partially in its request to submit key documents.

The legal advisers had reportedly said some of the documents were either not in the SABC’s commercial interests to reveal, or not in the broadcaster’s possession.

These had included those relating to the appointment of former chief operating officer Hlaudi Motsoeneng to group executive of corporate affairs and the contract entered into with MultiChoice.

The SABC subsequently handed over 400 documents to the committee.

Although the MultiChoice documents were initially described as “commercially sensitive”, Communications Minister Faith Muthambi had reportedly contradicted the SABC during her testimony.

But, it emerged last week, that parts of the MultiChoice contract have been blacked out.

At the time, committee chairperson Smith said the legal adviser to the board owed Parliament “big time” for wasting taxpayers’ money and delaying the inquiry.

Smith had raised questions about the authority and capacity of the lawyer representing the broadcaster when it was no longer forming a quorum and could not take decisions.

At the last meeting of the committee on Friday, Smith said the matter needed to be revisited.

“I need you, by the time we meet on Tuesday, to be able to say to this committee, what can we do to a law firm that in their letter had made statements that these are commercially sensitive documents,” he told his colleagues.

Smith also said it was clear that “there was consistent bad advice given to the chair of the board… I need the legal team to look at it”.

The committee has also warned those who may have made false statement when they gave oral evidence.