CAPE TOWN, December 2 (ANA) – An urgent application by SABC board chairman Mbulaheni Maguvhe to interdict MPs from going ahead with an inquiry into the affairs of the public broadcaster was dismissed with costs in the high court in Cape Town on Friday night.
Justice Siraj Desai, presiding over the matter, said in a short ruling: “The application is dismissed, the first applicant to pay the costs. Reasons to follow at another stage.”
While Desai said a full written judgment would be made available to all parties at a later stage, he appeared to be convinced by arguments from legal representatives for Parliament and the Democratic Alliance who joined the court challenge as one of their MPs was cited as a respondent.
Earlier, Denzil Potgieter, acting for Parliament asked that the matter be dismissed as arguments by Maguvhe’s advocates and counsel acting for the SABC that an inquiry by MPs would not be fair and impartial “seems to be based on a conceptual misconception”.
“It’s actually even common cause between my clients and the applicants, we must act fairly,” Potgieter said.
He further argued that the South African Broadcasting Corporation as an organisation should not be party to the inquiry by an ad hoc committee of Parliament as the probe had nothing to do with it, but was aimed at the board – it’s sole non-executive director being Maghuve following several resignations from the body over the past few weeks.
Potgieter said the inquiry was “purely investigative” and had no powers of adjudication.
“They’re [ad hoc committee] a conduit, a post office really. They are not taking a binding decision on anything. The National Assembly [NA] takes action,” he contended.
He said Maghuve and the corporation would be handed a copy of the committee’s report and if there are any negative findings against them, they would have right of reply before the NA is asked to make a decision.
“This is a preemptive strike…If you want a preemptive strike, you have to put something really earth-shattering before the court.
“Why are you placing hurdles in front of the committee? It’s unjustified,” he continued.
Before Potgieter spoke, Ismail Jamie, acting for the SABC, said what the broadcaster wanted was not to place obstacles before the parliamentary ad hoc committee which would conduct the probe, it actually wanted to participate in the inquiry.
“We want to come to the party and not prevent the party from happening,” he said.
Jamie tried to convince the court that it had a right to be involved as it would be affected by any decision of the ad hoc committee. In addition, the corporation had a problem with a summons issued on Maguvhe that he submit certain documents, including those relating to the controversial multi-million rand deal giving pay-TV operator MultiChoice access to the SABC’s archives, to the parliamentary committee conducting the probe.
Jamie said the summons was not valid as the documents “don’t belong to the board”.
“The SABC has proprietary interest and ownership of those documents.”
“He’s entitled to see the documents, but he’s not entitled to hand over the documents because he’s not the owner of the documents,” he argued.
“We are entitled to protect our own commercial interests.”
Desai was not convinced, replying: “No you are not. The SABC is an asset of all South Africans.”
Jamie said at the very least the SABC wanted to be able to present the documents “in camera”, although MPs have said they were only in favour of individuals and not institutions testifying behind closed doors.
Earlier, Maguvhe’s legal counsel, Thabani Masuku, told the court that MPs sitting on the ad hoc committee and their political parties have already made negative statements about Maguvhe, whom has refused to step down despite a request from Parliament’s portfolio committee on communications to do so.
“You are already stuffed. There’s no way you can walk into a committee of persons who hold this view that they are going to be independent….they already held that view,” Masuku said.
Masuku insists the committee members would not give Maguvhe a fair hearing.
“People have already announced on the conduct of this individual…because they will say he has failed to discharge his fiduciary duties,” he contended.
Maguvhe also insisted, Masuku said, that his dignity was at stake, to which Judge Siraj Desai said: “To be the last man standing is hardly a very dignified position.”
Friday’s judgment means that the parliamentary inquiry would start next week.
Speaking to reporters outside the court, ad hoc committee chairman Vincent Smith said Parliament was vindicated by the outcome of Friday’s hearing.
“This week coming, we will definitely start. We are not going to waste one more day unnecessarily,” he said.
“We’ve always acted within the law. We’ve always felt that there was nothing that the people who came to court had in terms of real arguments…”
Smith said that the summons served on Maguvhe would also have to be complied with, and that he expected documents required by the committee to be handed over to MPs before the inquiry started in mid-week next week.
“We will work without fear, favour or prejudice and we will afford everyone involved what they’re entitled to in terms of natural justice.”
Maguvhe is scheduled to testify next week Friday.
– African News Agency (ANA)
