The SABC board is too bloated and costly to the public broadcaster, and its members susceptible to external influence, parliament has heard.
The Department of Communications wants SABC board members to be reduced from 12 to nine. The recommendation was presented before the portfolio committee on communications yesterday. It also discussed various legal opinions on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, which partly deals with the appointment and removal of board members.
The committee was also told the sub judice rule does not prevent parliament from passing legislation on the removal of SABC board members even though there are pending cases at the courts.
This is according to the state law advisor, parliament's legal services as well as an independent legal opinion sought by the Department of Communications.
There are currently two cases before the courts that relate to the removal of three board members last year.
Former board member Ronnie Lubisi has taken Minister of Communications Faith Muthambi to court over his firing. The Save our SABC (SOS) Coalition has also hauled the minister to court over the proposed amendments.
Tshegofatso Kgarabjang from the department's legal services told the committee that a large board could be easily influenced.
"On the issue of a small board, there are challenges we are facing with regards to a large board. A large board may be subjected to outside interference and lobbying of external forces and sometimes conflicts of interest.
"Reasons for the amendment of the board's size, reducing it from 12 to nine, include lessening lobbying to vote for a particular position. A large board is very expensive ... and money can be used elsewhere," said Kgarabjang.
He said as seen previously, a large board "can easily become dysfunctional due to too many competing factors".
On whether the sub judice rule applies to the cases before the court, Kgarabjang said they found that the rule did not apply to the department on these pending cases.
"The court on one side is dealing with the validity of the removal, while on the other side we are dealing with the introduction of the bill with regard to the member. So there is no way that the powers can fall between the cracks," said Kgarabjang.
'Cut down fat at SABC board'
The SABC board is too bloated and costly to the public broadcaster, and its members susceptible to external influence, parliament has heard.
The Department of Communications wants SABC board members to be reduced from 12 to nine. The recommendation was presented before the portfolio committee on communications yesterday. It also discussed various legal opinions on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, which partly deals with the appointment and removal of board members.
The committee was also told the sub judice rule does not prevent parliament from passing legislation on the removal of SABC board members even though there are pending cases at the courts.
This is according to the state law advisor, parliament's legal services as well as an independent legal opinion sought by the Department of Communications.
There are currently two cases before the courts that relate to the removal of three board members last year.
Former board member Ronnie Lubisi has taken Minister of Communications Faith Muthambi to court over his firing. The Save our SABC (SOS) Coalition has also hauled the minister to court over the proposed amendments.
Tshegofatso Kgarabjang from the department's legal services told the committee that a large board could be easily influenced.
"On the issue of a small board, there are challenges we are facing with regards to a large board. A large board may be subjected to outside interference and lobbying of external forces and sometimes conflicts of interest.
"Reasons for the amendment of the board's size, reducing it from 12 to nine, include lessening lobbying to vote for a particular position. A large board is very expensive ... and money can be used elsewhere," said Kgarabjang.
He said as seen previously, a large board "can easily become dysfunctional due to too many competing factors".
On whether the sub judice rule applies to the cases before the court, Kgarabjang said they found that the rule did not apply to the department on these pending cases.
"The court on one side is dealing with the validity of the removal, while on the other side we are dealing with the introduction of the bill with regard to the member. So there is no way that the powers can fall between the cracks," said Kgarabjang.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Latest Videos