Communications and Digital Technologies Minister Solly Malatsi said the ministry and portfolio committee have agreed to identify issues of primary concern with the SABC Bill and develop a timeline for the reintroduction of the bill within a year.
The portfolio committee on communications and digital technologies on Tuesday stood down the responses from the department on the submissions made at public hearings on the SABC Bill.
This comes as Malatsi informed National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza about a week ago of his decision to withdraw the bill following stakeholder consultation and thorough review of public submissions.
On Tuesday, committee chairperson Khusela Sangoni-Diko said the committee was not in possession of the letter Malatsi wrote to Didiza.
Sangoni-Diko, however, said they were made aware that Didiza encouraged the Minister to engage the committee on another matter raised in his letter, which was not yet published in the parliamentary communique.
“I have been in contact with the Minister. We have agreed until we exhaust all avenues this process will continue,” she said.
In response, Malatsi confirmed discussions with Sangoni-Diko on the matter.
“While it is important to proceed with submission from the department, this was scheduled prior to developments that happened,” he said.
He stated that key areas of concern with the bill included lack of a credible financial model, the extent of ministerial powers and lack of clear role of Parliament in the appointment of another proposed board for SABC, and absence of policy foundation to premise law formulation.
“The department is justified that there is a need to find time to clarify and work on all those concerns.”
Malatsi said the ministry and the committee have agreed to identify issues of primary concern to be combed and develop an agreed timeline for the reintroduction of the bill within a year.
He confirmed that he had not tabled the withdrawal of the bill before the Cabinet, which could be done retrospectively as the ministry opted to trigger the process in Parliament.
EFF MP Leigh-Ann Mathys noted with concern that the committee learnt of the bill’s withdrawal in the media.
“Now we are in this mess and we don’t know whether this was an endorsement from the cabinet. What exactly is going on in the GNU?” she asked.
IFP’s Khethamabala Sithole said the withdrawal of the bill was confusing and suggested that they obtain legal advice on the way forward.
“We waste time on things that need to be clarified somewhere else,” Sithole said
DA’s Tsholofelo Bodlani echoed Sithole’s sentiments, saying after a bill was withdrawn, it was no longer before Parliament.
“For the portfolio committee to continue, it would be a waste of resources in terms of the time of the portfolio unless there is otherwise advice that says we should continue,” Bodlani said.
ANC’s Mzoleli Mrara said the process could have been handled differently.
He said although the minister was not to be denied to withdraw the bill, the challenge was in the consultation process.
Mrara said while Malatsi acknowledged the bill’s withdrawal, the question was what process they were in now and where the bill was.
Patriotic Alliance’s Shaik Imraam Subrathie raised concern about Malatsi’s unilateral decision without the committee’s consultation.
“If there is disrespect, the disrespect is to the portfolio committee,” Subrathie said.
Sangoni-Diko said: “We stand down and wait for clarity from parliamentary legal services. We are to get advice in writing based on the complexities.
“My own view perhaps is abuse of executive authority to come in the middle of public participation.”
Malatsi said there was no appetite to disrespect the committee and indicated that there would be instances of overlap in exercising executive powers
Cape Times