CSA boss Nenzani on Gauteng Lions' letter: ‘I’ve compiled my response’

Cricket SA president Chris Nenzani said he will respond to a letter sent to him by the Central Gauteng Lions cricket board.File Photo
Cricket SA president Chris Nenzani said he will respond to a letter sent to him by the Central Gauteng Lions cricket board.File Photo
Image: Gallo Images

Cricket SA (CSA) president Chris Nenzani says he is in the process of responding to a letter sent to him by the Central Gauteng Lions (CGL) cricket board on Wednesday.

The six-page, 29-point memo compiled by the CGL board, which TimesLive possesses, is addressed to Nenzani, the CSA’s members’ council and CSA’s acting chief executive officer, Dr Jacques Faul.

It deals with the recent administrative lapses that have blighted the organisation, especially regarding how they have handled suspended chief executive officer Thabang Moroe’s forensic investigation.

Moroe has been suspended by CSA since December 2019. He is a former CGL president who then became CSA’s vice-president.

Nenzani said he was in the process of sending the response he had already compiled.

“The letter has been sent to me and I’m ready to respond to the Lions,” Nenzani said.

“At this point, I’ve already compiled my response, but I’m going to respond to the person who sent the letter. My response is ready. It’s just a case of responding to the person who sent the letter.”

CGL president Anne Vilas acknowledged the letter was sent to Nenzani, but did not want to comment further.

The letter addressed all the matters that have blighted CSA. Crucially, in points 14 to 22, it highlighted CGL’s concerns about how Moroe’s investigation has been managed since his suspension in December, and their concerns regarding the changing of the terms of feference of the forensic investigation.

TimesLive also understands the four affiliates who did not vote for the amendments of the terms of reference were KwaZulu-Natal, Border, CGL and Easterns.

The key points in the CGL letter to CSA read as follows:

  1. The latest amendment to the forensic investigation’s terms of reference (ToR) also appears to have been secured under a mistaken premise.
  2. The resolution document requests the forensic investigator “to provide the board with certain information/reports related to the conduct of certain members of the CSA management team, but excluding any information related to the investigation of the conduct of the board and the members council during the period under review”.
  3. The resolution document goes on to record: “Such a request for information/ reports was not envisaged under  paragraph 3 (read together with paragraph 7) of the terms of reference”. The objective and scope of the investigation was not set out in paragraph 3 or paragraph 7 of the ToR.
  4. It is clear from the objectives and the scope of the ToR that the investigation was not limited to the conduct of senior executives of CSA but included the role of the members council and, more particularly, the board. Examples of this appear in paragraphs 2.2, 2.2.4, 2.3 and 2.4 of the ToR.
  5. Of greater concern to us is that the slides presented to parliament by CSA on or about June 19 2020, suggest that the forensic investigators consulted with you, Iqbal Khan, Ken Borland, Marius Schoeman and Professor Shirley Zinn, together with representatives from the SA Cricketers’ Association. It therefore seems clear that some work had already been done by the forensic investigators in regard to the role played by the board. This expense would turn out to be fruitless and wasteful expenditure if the forensic investigators are no longer required to investigate the conduct of the board and the members council.
  6. In addition, we understand that 10 of the 14 members council members voted in favour of the ratification of the amendment of the forensic investigation’s ToR.
  7. It seems to us it was improper from a governance perspective for board members and members council members to vote in favour of the amendment of the forensic investigation’s ToR when their conduct was going to be reported on. There therefore was a clear conflict of interest and they should not have participated in such decision-making.
  8. If the aim was only to expedite obtaining information in regard to the conduct of senior executives from the forensic investigators, that did not require such an extensive amendment to the forensic investigation’s ToR.
  9. Instead, the forensic investigators could have been asked to report in regard to the conduct of certain members of the CSA management team initially, and to report a little later once they have concluded the further work that they need to conclude, in regard to the conduct of the board and the members council.

X