Ken Borland

Graeme Smith may have only been 22 years old when he was appointed as national captain in 2003, but democracy in this country was only nine years old then and the Proteas were a bit of a mess, so in many ways he was the big, older brother South African cricket desperately needed.

As a brash young man still trying to make his way in international cricket, Smith was probably only fully aware of the culture problems within the team after a few years. After the disappointment of the 2007 World Cup in the Caribbean, Smith set about fixing the Proteas, alongside manager Mohammed Moosajee, who was appointed in 2008, and the input of life coaches like Paddy Upton and Jeremy Snape.

Protea Fire and a far more inclusive culture were born, one which acknowledged that they were representing a country which had a divided past. Honesty and Ubuntu were required, they were playing for more than just themselves.

The result was a much happier team and it showed in performance as they became the No.1 side in the world.

When Smith retired in 2014 he hoped the Protea Fire legacy would live on. How sad it must have been for him that, just five years later, the Proteas were in rack and ruin. Typical of the leader he is, Smith agreed to try and restore South African cricket to former glories by becoming Director of Cricket at the end of 2019.

But worse was to follow as the very people who had pushed Cricket South Africa to the precipice then spearheaded a campaign against Smith. It culminated in the Social Justice and Nation-Building hearings, where it seemed as many vile untruths were spoken as there were painful reminders of a shameful past.

The totally inadequate work of Advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza was finally undone this week when Smith was cleared of all charges of racism by an independent arbitration hearing. CSA gave notice of their defeat – with costs – at 9pm on a Sunday night and board chairman Lawson Naidoo issued a statement that said it was now “appropriate to recognise the extraordinary contribution that Graeme has made to South African cricket”. It was almost as if the history we know we lived through as Proteas fans was now officially approved.

Unfortunately, there is lasting damage – one only has to see on social media the bitter divisionists refusing to accept the arbitrators’ findings – and Naidoo’s closing comment – “we very much hope that he will still work in the cricket world in appropriate capacities going forward” – hints at the fact that Smith’s expertise as the most experienced captain in Test history is now probably lost to South African cricket and will be snapped up by some other country.

If it’s not bad enough losing so much talent and I.P. to overseas teams thanks to the exchange rate, we are also actively chasing away people who could contribute so much good to our sport.

Head coach Mark Boucher’s disciplinary hearing is still to come and the outcome of Smith’s arbitration suggests there is still hope that the ‘tentative’ and unproven but damning allegations made by the SJN will receive the proper, unbiased and legally sound treatment they deserve.

A new Director of Cricket is also still to be appointed, with Enoch Nkwe probably still the favourite to succeed Smith.

Having to appoint a new head coach for tough tours of India, England and Australia as his first task would not make his life any easier, but then again the good of the Proteas, who bring in 80% of CSA’s income, is way down the list of priorities of those who have grudges to settle.

The first week of the Social Justice and Nation-Building hearings have been a mere aperitif for what I sense many people are hoping are more sensational revelations from next week when former players start appearing before Advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza, the ombudsman appointed by Cricket South Africa.

But in many ways, this week’s “scene-setters”, as Ntsebeza has called them, have provided vital testimony because they have given a factual account of the transformation policies of CSA and how they have changed through the years. There have been successes, but there have been failures as well and surely no-one can question that the national team is not as transformed as it should be nearly 30 years after Unity.

The SJN commission did not have a promising start though. The first witness was Dr Eugenia Kula-Ameyaw, which was fair enough because the SJN was largely her idea. But the former CSA independent director produced a couple of hours of largely incoherent testimony riddled with factual errors. As a former Board member, how does she not know that the players’ association (SACA) don’t pay the players’ salaries?!

She then thought it would be appropriate to give Ntsebeza a cricket bat, signed by her, to commemorate the occasion. The ombudsman looked bemused and it was telling that he never mentioned Kula-Ameyaw’s presentation again during the week.

It was onwards and upwards from there though as Advocate Norman Arendse, former CSA president and current independent director, and Max Jordaan, CSA’s head of transformation, spoke of the steps taken to ensure equal opportunities for all before cricket was captured and the likes of Kula-Ameyaw took the reins.

Mary-Anne Dove, a doctor of sports and exercise science whose thesis was on the role of socio-ecological factors in talent development in sport, gave insights into how targets or quotas have to be accompanied by development and other interventions, and Zola Thamae, a former Board member and manager of the Proteas women’s team, gave shocking evidence of how the women’s national team was treated a decade ago.

Professor Richard Calland, an expert on sustainable governance and organisational culture, gave an interesting presentation too.

It is clear that CSA have made a meal of transformation, but it does not matter how many Black player quotas or targets they have, the failure of the Proteas to be truly representative of the country is firstly down to socio-economic issues.

Jordaan, who has been at CSA for 20 years, apart from the disingenuous comment that “nobody is missing out on selection because we are juggling numbers”, made the salient points that when the Proteas won the ICC mace for being top of the Test pile, targets were in place, and that transformation has to start at the many non-former-Model C and private schools and at clubs, but CSA runs into difficulties when they try and improve facilities in these areas due to recalcitrant city councils and the lack of support from the department of education.

Jordaan gave the example of a cricket facility in Welkom being taken over by the local council, who built a casino instead on the land, and buildings in townships “disappearing brick-by-brick”.

Instead of just congratulating themselves for having ticked the box of having a certain number of Black players in the Proteas and domestic teams (which is not a valid measure of transformation success because teams are forced to meet the racial targets), cricket needs to firstly make sure the pipeline at grassroots is working.

I believe CSA have actually done okay in this regard and have worked very hard to keep the pipeline flowing. But there is no doubt Black players still predominantly come from the former Model C and private schools – a much smaller pool.

This is due to structural, systemic problems that only national and local government can fix, especially with the currently constrained financial resources of CSA.

The frustration of Black African cricketers was evident in the presentations of Johannesburg coach David Mashiyi and former player Zonde Mbekeni.

The fact that Mbekeni feels as frustrated and angry about the lack of opportunities for Black Africans as he did in his playing days back in the 1970s is not okay.

But in many ways it boils down to a struggle for scant resources and opportunities.

While a majority independent board and an independent chair have been the most well-publicised aspects of the new Cricket South Africa constitution eventually agreed to by the Members Council, the process by which independent directors are appointed is another vital pillar of the new MoI … and it is now raising concerns among stakeholders in the game.

The MoI puts into place a Nominations Committee which will be a six-person panel comprising either a men’s or women’s former international player nominated by SACA, alongside a former CSA president nominated by the Interim Board, a Members Council representative and people from the Institute of Chartered Accountants, Institute of Directors and the Legal Practice Council.

The only problem with the Nominations Committee is that their word is final and the non-independent directors, or anyone else, are not allowed to object to the names they come up with.

The dangers of that clause are brought into focus by the first board that will serve under the new MoI. Because the Nominations Committee will only exist after the new constitution is formally adopted on Wednesday, they will be picking from a list that the Interim Board have seemingly put together from the applicants who put themselves forward before the cut-off date for applications, which was in February.

It is hardly an independent process because nobody knows who applies and who handled the applications, apart from the Interim Board.

Given the schisms in South African cricket that are obviously still present even though they will ‘officially’ be signed away on Wednesday, there is still an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty out there, and that has led to all manner of speculation and rumour about who CSA’s new directors will be.

The return of Norman Arendse, president of CSA from 2007 to 2008 and a controversial figure because of his continued interference in the selection of the national team, has been mooted, while some administrators have warned of a new wave of cadre deployment as they fear Minister of Sport Nathi Mthethwa wants to drive the ANC agenda in cricket.

Other administrators have called for the institution of an independent administrative office to handle applications for independent director posts, which would then pass them on to the Nominations Committee, with independent auditors exercising oversight through the whole process.

The process of appointing independent directors has the potential to be the new battleground of South African cricket.