POLITICS

Motsoeneng must be held personally liable for losses at SABC - Anton Alberts

FF Plus says 90% local content decision was made after foreign material had already been purchased

FF Plus asks Motsoeneng to be held personally liable for unnecessary losses at SABC  

21 July 2016

The FF Plus today submitted two complaints with the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC), in which the party asks that the acting operational chief of the SABC, Hlaudi Motsoeneng, is held personally liable for any unnecessary losses at the public broadcaster.

In terms of Section 77(2)(a) of the Companies Act, a ‘director’ of a company may be held responsible for losses resulting from improper action. The Commission is therefore also asked to determine whether Motsoeneng, in terms of his position held at the SABC, can be regarded as a director.

Adv. Anton Alberts, the FF Plus’ parliamentary spokesperson on communication, says the first complaint pertains to the expected losses of R500 million that the SABC will be announcing shortly and the role of the decision to use 90% local content in music.

The second complaint deals with the firing of eight senior SABC journalists at the SABC and the expected costs that will arise from this.

Adv. Alberts says the order made today by the North Gauteng High Court that the SABC may no longer prevent reporting on violent protests, strengthens the case of the fired journalists, who had had been dissatisfied about this issue and had been fired for their opposition to this decision.

The firing of the journalists also occurred after a court application had already been lodged, and shows the SABC’s contempt for the courts, Adv. Alberts says.

With regards to the first complaint, Adv. Alberts says that although the decision that 90% of music played has to be local content wasn’t that unpopular, it was instituted in an irresponsible and reckless manner, as foreign material had already been purchased and these expenses are now an unnecessary waste.

“The FF Plus asks that Motsoeneng should be held personally liable for this unnecessary expenditure which is most likely a contravention of the Companies Act in more than one way. It cannot be expected of taxpayers to be responsible for his poor judgment and decisions,” Adv. Albert says.

Issued by Anton Alberts, FF Plus parliamentary spokesperson, 21 July 2016