13.1.4 He questions Ms Dlamini’s credibility as a witness amidst various allegations that she had contravened procurement processes between 2010 and 2012 while she was employed at the SABC, and included supporting documentation in this regard. 13.1.5 An arbitration award from the CCMA awarded on 15 January 2015 states that Ms Dlamini was found guilty of gross misconduct on one charge relating to Impala, although there was no evidence to prove that she had enriched herself. It was recommended that the employer terminate her contract of employment. 13.1.6 Dr Ngubane raises concern that the manner in the inquiry was conducted and the information sought extended beyond the Committee’s mandate, which was aimed at inquiring into the fitness of the SABC Board that was chaired by Prof. Maguvhe. He points out that, bearing in mind the provisions of section 15A(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act, the mandate of the Committee appears to have been by events”. “overtaken 13.1.7 Dr Ngubane questions the appropriateness of prioritising the inquiry when in fact an Interim Board should have been appointed as a matter of urgency. He emphasises that it was not in the best interest of the SABC and/or any of its stakeholders for it to have been left to operate without a Board. This drew into question the Committee’s commitment to the SABC’s sustainability. 13.1.8 With regard to section 7 of the Interim Report, Dr Ngubane questioned the extent to which the Committee could have considered the and MultiChoice the TNA Media Group contracts without having had sight of the actual agreements. In relation to the SABC’s relationship with the TNA Media Group, Dr Ngubane reiterates that Mr Molefe’s in that regard had been unfounded. “allegations” 13.1.9 In his concluding comments Dr Ngubane emphasised that the Committee could only reach a conclusion” if it inquired further in order to obtain “meaningful relevant information in instances where witnesses provided conflicting information. To this end, a more thorough investigation may still be required. In his view, the only reasonable recommendation the Committee could arrive at would be that an Interim Board be appointed, and that that body assists with a more in-depth investigation.
13.1.4 He questions Ms Dlamini’s credibility as a witness amidst various allegations that she had contravened procurement processes between 2010 and 2012 while she was employed at the SABC, and included supporting documentation in this regard. 13.1.5 An arbitration award from the CCMA awarded on 15 January 2015 states that Ms Dlamini was found guilty of gross misconduct on one charge relating to Impala, although there was no evidence to prove that she had enriched herself. It was recommended that the employer terminate her contract of employment. 13.1.6 Dr Ngubane raises concern that the manner in the inquiry was conducted and the information sought extended beyond the Committee’s mandate, which was aimed at inquiring into the fitness of the SABC Board that was chaired by Prof. Maguvhe. He points out that, bearing in mind the provisions of section 15A(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act, the mandate of the Committee appears to have been “overtaken by events”. 13.1.7 Dr Ngubane questions the appropriateness of prioritising the inquiry when in fact an Interim Board should have been appointed as a matter of urgency. He emphasises that it was not in the best interest of the SABC and/or any of its stakeholders for it to have been left to operate without a Board. This drew into question the Committee’s commitment to the SABC’s sustainability. 13.1.8 With regard to section 7 of the Interim Report, Dr Ngubane questioned the extent to which the Committee could have considered the MultiChoice and the TNA Media Group contracts without having had sight of the actual agreements. In relation to the SABC’s relationship with the TNA Media Group, Dr Ngubane reiterates that Mr Molefe’s “allegations” in that regard had been unfounded. 13.1.9 In his concluding comments Dr Ngubane emphasised that the Committee could only reach a “meaningful conclusion” if it inquired further in order to obtain relevant information in instances where witnesses provided conflicting information. To this end, a more thorough investigation may still be required. In his view, the only reasonable recommendation the Committee could arrive at would be that an Interim Board be appointed, and that that body assists with a more in-depth investigation.