So Many Questions

So far, no action has been taken in response to the public protector’s report, released last month, on mismanagement at the SABC. Chris Barron asked Communications Minister Yunus Carrim . . .

What are you doing about the SABC?

We’ve referred the public protector’s report to the chief state law adviser [for advice] on what is appropriate for a minister to do legally.

What can you do?

We cannot take decisions for the SABC board.

What are you going to do about the board?

What do you mean, what am I going to do? The report makes it clear there has been a massive failure of corporate governance. Doesn’t this mean the board hasn’t been doing its job? It’s referring to a previous board. The current board was appointed six months ago.

When will something be done?

The board has sought legal advice because the people affected by the report also have legal rights. The board will come back to me next week on what it plans to do.

The chairman has said she has no intention of doing anything?

She denies she said that. The board itself has been very positive and very sensible and reasonable.

Meanwhile, the SABC is sitting with someone in charge who never finished school?

He’s not in charge.

He’s the chief operating officer and anyone there will tell you he runs the show.

Right, so what’s your question?

Does it concern you that the person in charge of an organisation with a R4.7-billion turnover doesn’t have matric?

That was an interim decision taken by a previous board.

Does it concern you?

It is the board that takes ultimate responsibility for the SABC.

Aren’t you ultimately responsible for the board?

Yes, but I have to act within the law. You’d be the first to accuse us if we interfered with the board.

There’s a long history of ministerial interference in state-owned enterprises, including the SABC.

I can’t answer for others.

Don’t you have a responsibility to act when the board is wasting taxpayers’ money?

Yes, obviously, but right now that board is processing a report.

Isn’t there a need to accelerate the process?

I agree. Right now we have a green paper, and one of the issues emerging in the public hearings is how should the SABC be constituted, who should it be accountable to.

We’ve heard all that on and on . . .

Some of the things the public protector referred to are more symptoms of a broader set of systemic or structural challenges . . .

Which the government has failed to tackle?

Well, yes, we could have done more, I agree.

Does it suit the government to have a dysfunctional broadcaster?

Absolutely not.

Then why has it tolerated one for so long?

I will answer for the period from July 2013.

Why has the government tolerated the present situation for so long?

The government has not tolerated it.

There was a report by the Special Investigating Unit seven years ago pointing out mismanagement and corruption. What has the government done since then?

In 2012 they took various cases to the Brixton police station . . .

Are you curious how someone could be appointed to the critical position of chief operating officer with no qualifications?

Ideally, the person who occupies such a position should be qualified to do so. But there are many people who do not have formal qualifications but who have expertise.

Isn’t it clear from the public protector’s report that the chief operating officer has no expertise?

I am saying to you — let me finish — I am not elitist, OK? And you shouldn’t be, either.

Isn’t the government insulting taxpayers by entrusting their money to someone patently unqualified to manage it?

If he’s unqualified then surely . . .

Why do you say “if” — he doesn’t even have matric?

I agree, technically he is not qualified, but in many cases people have done a good job in spite of not having the technical qualifications.

The public protector has made it clear he is not doing a good job.

Yes, but he challenges that.

We also have the auditor-general’s report.

I agree on that, but you can’t attribute it all to one person.

Have you wondered why the former chairman altered the requirements to accommodate him?

I don’t know the answer.

Because someone politically powerful wanted him in that position?

I’ve told you I don’t know. I hear these things, but as a politician I’ve heard many things. Exactly what is correct and what isn’t is difficult to tell in these challenging circumstances.