Three civil society organisations have rejected the claim by minister in the presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni that communications & digital technologies minister Solly Malatsi was wrong to withdraw the SABC Bill.
Ntshavheni said during a post-cabinet media briefing on Wednesday that as the bill had been approved by cabinet, it was only cabinet and not the minister that was entitled to withdraw it. She said the bill’s withdrawal was a breach of protocol and would probably be discussed at next week’s cabinet meeting, where a final decision would be taken.
The disagreement adds to the conflicts between government of national unity (GNU) partners, the ANC and the DA, which are already in dispute over the National Health Insurance Act and the Basic Education Laws Amendment Act.
Mondli Gungubele, Malatsi’s deputy and the former communications minister who introduced the bill into parliament, strongly disagreed with its withdrawal, as did Khusela Diko, chair of the communications & digital technologies parliamentary portfolio committee.
Malatsi withdrew the bill because it did not address the urgent need for a funding model for the public broadcaster. His spokesperson Tlangelani Manganyi said the minister was “seeking legal opinion” on the matter of the bill’s withdrawal.
The SOS Support Public Broadcasting Coalition (SOS), Media Monitoring Africa (MMA), and the SA National Editors’ Forum (Sanef) which all support Malatsi’s decision to withdraw the bill said in a joint statement they were shocked by Ntshavheni's claim.
“SOS, MMA and Sanef are of the view that the rules of the National Assembly are extremely clear that it is the minister that introduced a bill that has the authority to withdraw it before a second reading thereof (Rule 277 read with Rule 334) and that cabinet has no role in such a decision, either in terms of the rules of the National Assembly or of the constitution.
“To the extent that the manifestly irrational and unconstitutional SABC Bill continues to be dealt with by the National Assembly, SOS, MMA and Sanef give notice that they will be instructing lawyers to commence proceedings to challenge the constitutionality of any resulting legislation based on the existing SABC Bill,” they said.
The three organisations have consistently opposed the bill since it was tabled in parliament in 2023.
“The withdrawal of the SABC Bill comes amid strong and sustained advocacy efforts by a broad range of actors, including civil society organisations, committed to ensuring that the SABC remains independent and becomes financially sustainable,” they said in an earlier statement.
The bill, they said, had been pushed through in a policy vacuum, pending the finalisation of the draft white paper on audio and audiovisual media services and online content safety.
The bill would also have given the minister three years to develop a new funding model framework (rather than a funding model itself) while the SABC was in a dire financial situation.
Broken model
“In the meanwhile, it continues to provide for a cross-subsidisation model which is broken — as a matter of fact the public division of the SABC has produced more income for the SABC than its commercial division for over two decades.
“The bill also created a commercial subsidiary that has its own board. The minister would have been granted veto powers over the appointment of the commercial board and leeway to interfere in the operations of the SABC. The SABC’s history is littered with the detrimental effects of ministerial interference in board affairs on the SABC’s independence and governance.
“The bill was also taking the SABC backwards — providing that the editor-in-chief of the SABC will again be the CEO instead of the head of news. This provision in the bill would have been in direct contravention of the current SABC editorial policies which are in accordance with global good practice standards for public broadcasters.”
The three organisations called on Malatsi’s department to immediately reinstate the white paper policy process and to urgently look at how to ameliorate the SABC’s precarious financial position. There was an urgent need for new legislation governing the SABC, they said.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.