SABC ‘can’t get rid of’ happy Hlaudi
An insider doubts that Motsoeneng will be axed after populating the broadcaster with yes men
Hlaudi Motsoeneng is a very happy man. And he’s getting happier by the day. The day after the Supreme Court of Appeal denied him leave to appeal a high court decision declaring his appointment as SABC chief operating officer unlawful, the public broadcaster’s effervescent big shot arrived for work at his Auckland Park office in Johannesburg.
What followed was confusion: the public protector’s report that sparked it all is under review, and the SABC board is dithering over what to do with its (maybe) former chief operating officer.
But amid all the noise, Motsoeneng says he is happy.
“I am happier than yesterday and Monday. Why wouldn’t I be?” he asked, laughing, when approached by the Mail & Guardian.
Motsoeneng wouldn’t comment on the court case but the M&G understands that he is happily ensconced in his home in Vanderbijlpark, awaiting the board’s verdict.
A former board member laughed when asked how this process would unfold.
“Hlaudi has stripped that organisa- tion of any talent and that guy who is a [chief executive] or [chief financial officer] is totally clueless. That place cannot operate without Hlaudi — he’s made sure of that.
“They can’t simply get rid of him because everyone who is there is so used to being dictated to: ‘Wena turn left, wena turn right.’ Even the colour of the pens they buy is probably dictated by Hlaudi.”
Motsoeneng never did anything wrong, according to his lawyer, Zola Majavu, but is a victim of the process that saw him being unlawfully hired. Majavu said this week’s ruling was actually against the SABC board and the minister because they appointed Motsoeneng.
“My approach was to tell my client that he did not appoint himself. It was the board and the minister who appointed him. This decision doesn’t mean he [Motsoeneng] lost but his employers did,” said Majavu.
“We wrote a letter to the board on an urgent basis, asking them to inform my client what the next step would be. My client did not hire himself and the board that did will have to give him a way forward,” he added.
Motsoeneng describes himself as “a very clever man” who has already proven his ability to trump the SABC board.
Explaining how he managed to implement his controversial 90% local content quota across the SABC’s broadcast platforms, Motsoeneng said he had put the idea to the SABC board but had lost the vote.
“However, I showed them that I might not have a matric but I am very clever. In the end it’s me who has to make a final decision and I did exactly that,” Motsoeneng was quoted as saying in the Daily Sun.
For his efforts he was given a lifetime achievement award by the South African Traditional Music Awards, which also named an award after him “for life”.
In 2014 the public protector found that Motsoeneng had misrepresented his qualifications and abused his power. The report recommended disciplinary action, but an internal SABC investigation cleared him. In May, after a cursory attempt at following the public protector’s recommended remedial action, the SABC asked for the report to be reviewed.
The Democratic Alliance had asked the Cape Town high court to declare Motsoeneng’s appointment illegal. Last year, Judge Dennis Davis ruled that Motsoeneng’s appointment must be set aside, and this week the appeal court refused him leave to appeal the judgment.
Two appeals and close to a year later, the SABC does not have a permanent chief operating officer, chief financial officer or chief executive.
Motsoeneng will not contest the most recent court outcome but the board and the communications minister, as separate respondents in the case, may take it up with the Constitutional Court to prove that they were right to hire him.
If that happens, the DA is already gearing up to ensure that each applicant is held personally liable for all the legal costs incurred.
The South African Communist Party’s Alex Mashilo said its campaign to “save” the broadcaster would continue.
“We are calling on the SABC to remove him [Motsoeneng] and, if they don’t, we will march for their removal because they are then incapable of performing their function.”