Any attempt to appoint interim SABC Board will be unlawful: SOS

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Lobby group, Support Public Broadcasting Coalition (SOS) says any attempts to appoint an interim SABC Board will be unlawful as the outgoing board was not dysfunctional.

SOS says it condemns any proposed plans to recommend and appoint an interim board.

This comes as the process of appointing a new board has been stalled due to the State Security Agency’s (SSA) delay in vetting the 34 candidates who have been interviewed for the vacancies.

The SSA told the Communications Committee that its vetting system was not working.

SOS national coordinator Uyanda Siyotula says, “The Broadcasting Act of 1999 in Section 15(a) sets out that any circumstances in which an interim board can be appointed by Parliament, is when the President opposes the recommendation contained in the National Assembly resolution dissolves an existing SABC Board, which is something that did not occur in this instance.”

‘And then again, National Assembly may only make a resolution after due inquiry and upon a finding that the board has failed to carry out its duties to adhere to the SABC Charter and to control the assets of the SABC which again is something that did not occur in this particular instance.”


Earlier, the lobby group said Parliament’s Communications Committee should take full responsibility for the delay in appointing a new SABC Board.

This comes as the outgoing board has a day left before its term of office comes to an end on Saturday.

The public broadcaster will be without a board from Sunday creating a vacuum.

SOS says it raised concerns when there was already a delay by the committee to kick-start the public consultation process for a new board.

Thirty-four candidates have already been interviewed. The communications Sub-Committees could not deliberate on the candidates to choose the 12 most suitable ones, due to the delay in the vetting process by the State Security Agency (SSA).

Siyotula says, “The Committee is to blame in this particular instance because they knew five years ago that the current board will be leaving office on the 15 of October but they waited until the last minute to commence all processes pertaining to the appointment of the SABC Board. I mean the closing date for the public’s call for nominations was August, it was three months away from the end of the term of office for the current board and they even then they still delayed these processes, so we believe that the Committee is to blame. And these delays by the Committee have now led to the whole process being rushed and compromised. These are issues that we raised and to them when we wrote a letter to the Committee.”

VIDEO: SABC board candidates’ interviews: