SABC fight turns ugly

Communications Minister Solly Malatsi has said that the National Assembly’s speaker, Thoko Didiza, is violating the Parliamentary rules by failing to gazette his decision to withdraw the SABC Bill, the Sunday Times reports.

Malatsi’s frustrations with Didiza come after over a month of waiting for the SABC Bill to be withdrawn from Parliament.

The Minister told the Times that if the Minister writes to the speaker to have a bill withdrawn from Parliament, “there is no other option for the speaker to do any other thing.”

Malatsi believes that Didiza is seeking political intervention by instructing him to consult the portfolio committee, which he says he has done and “remains steadfast” in his position, which the committee has accepted.

“It’s very clear that there is stalling from the Speaker’s office to withdraw the bill, which is extraordinary because that would be in violation of the very same rules she’s supposed to uphold.”

Following Malatsi’s comments, the Portfolio Committee on Communications and Digital Technologies chairperson, Khusela Diko, condemned the Minsiter’s criticism of Didiza, calling it unwarranted and unconstitutional.

Parliament went on to say that the withdrawal of the Bill has yet to be gazetted because clarity is needed regarding the Minister’s authority to do so.

“The committee has never accepted the withdrawal of the Bill by the Minister, it has instead sought clarity from the Executive on the Minister’s authority for the unilateral withdrawal of the Bill before Parliament,” Diko said in a statement on Sunday.

“The committee has reiterated that Bills before Parliament from the Executive do not belong to individual Ministers but to the Cabinet as a whole.”

However, this is a curious statement from Diko given her comments when Malatsi first announced that the Bill would be withdrawn.

“While appreciative of the fact that as the executive authority, the minister may rescind the Bill for whatever reason before its second reading in the House, the chairperson holds that this decision by the minister would be highly ill-advised,” Diko said in early November.

Parliament’s need for clarity on Malatsi’s authority could result from new legislation concerning a minister’s ability to withdraw a Bill.

Following the backlash Malatsi received for withdrawing the Bill, the South African government stripped ministers of the power to withdraw bills without first getting approval from Deputy President Paul Mashatile and President Cyril Ramaphosa.

Mashatile wrote to National Assembly speaker Thoko Didiza, informing her that the decision was made during a cabinet meeting on 22 November 2024.

Mashatile’s spokesperson, Keith Khoza, said it is prudent that the cabinet and the president are involved in decisions to withdraw legislation when they are involved in its approval.

There seems to be confusion over whether the decision can be applied retroatively.

According to Democratic Alliance leaders in the Government of National Unity (GNU), it cannot apply retroactively, and Malatsi’s withdrawal has not been nullified.

However, the Minister of the presidency, Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, disagrees. Last week, she told the media that Mashatile’s letter nullified Malatsi’s withdrawal of the SABC bill.

The withdrawal was carried out in terms of subrule 1 of rule 277, which empowers ministers to withdraw legislation by writing to the speaker.

Parliament’s statement regarding the Minister’s frustrations with Didiza included Diko’s comment reiterating her concerns about Malatsi’s withdrawal of the Bill — a decision she vehemently rejected.

“Minister Malatsi has raised some valid concerns regarding the powers to be accorded to the Minister to appoint board members of the proposed commercial subsidiary of the SABC.”

“However, his other objection regarding the absence of a funding model in the current version of the Bill is unfounded, flimsy and inconsequential.”

Further critique

Malatsi’s decision to withdraw the Bill was also criticised by his deputy and predecessor, Mondli Gungubele.

Gungubele published the draft Bill in October last year after several years of consideration, based on inputs from key industry stakeholders — including the SABC itself.

The SABC Bill was intended to replace the Broadcasting Act of 1999, which is considered outdated, given developments in the broadcasting and streaming industry in the past few years.

However, Malatsi believed the Bill had no credible funding model, which was urgently required to stabilise the state broadcaster.

He also believed that it granted the Minister too much power to appoint board members, so he withdrew it.

Gungubele took issue with this, saying that Malatsi’s actions were “highly counterproductive”.

“When you remove the Bill to deal with the financial model, it means that when you come back, you have to start another long process so that you have a legal basis for it,” Gungubele said.

“I find it illogical because the Bill is already in the parliamentary process.”

Gungubele explained that once the Bill is in this parliamentary process, members of Parliament have it, and all that needs to be done is amend the parts that undermine its ideal intention.

While Gungubele is not advocating for the Bill, the former Minister highlights the SABC’s dire financial position, which requires funding as soon as possible to upskill and adapt to the ever-changing media environment.