Ken Borland

It was never going to be a dolly of a catch that Social Justice and Nation-Building ombudsman Advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza found himself under, but given the evidence provided during the last week of hearings, his job over the next month in compiling his final report should be like taking a firmly-struck drive straight to you in the covers.

Given the legal pedigree of Ntsebeza, I would be surprised if he fumbled. Even though the way assistant Sandile July seems to have already made up his mind about who the villains of this piece are is a bit like your team-mate distracting you under a high catch by also trying to get under it.

As Ntsebeza has often reminded, his brief is to find whether there has been racial and gender discrimination in South African cricket.

For those of us who have been involved in the game since unity, the evidence has clearly backed up what we knew all along. There was most certainly racial discrimination and lingering Apartheid attitudes that caused some fine cricketers and people to be dreadfully treated.

But since around 2010, the issue becomes cloudier. The national team became more representative and more aware of diversity and cultural differences. Cricket South Africa’s Board became majority Black.

The last week has seen Ntsebeza admit that the evidence provided by those found guilty of attempting to corrupt the game – Alviro Petersen, Lonwabo Tsotsobe, Ethy Mbhalati and Thami Tsolekile – that they had been discriminated against on the basis of their colour, was “a red herring”.

Ntsebeza expressed his regret that so much time had been spent on the issue, likening it to “a runaway horse” that was eventually corralled by the testimony of those who led the matchfixing investigation in 2015/16.

So their evidence – save for some of the harrowing tales from Tsolekile’s youth – should be discounted. Along with that of former CSA independent director Eugenia Kula-Ameyaw, who ironically came up with the SJN idea.

That she actually has very little clue on the game in this country was borne out by much of her evidence being picked apart by the compelling testimony of SACA chief executive Andrew Breetzke, CSA’s acting head of pathways Eddie Khoza and acting CEO Pholetsi Moseki.

High-profile lawyer David Becker, along with Moseki, also cleared up many of the untruths about how Graeme Smith came to be in CSA’s service as director of cricket.

It is a pity that none of Smith, Mark Boucher or AB de Villiers have given public testimony, but hopefully there is enough in their affidavits for Ntsebeza to have a clear picture of their side of the story.

It is to be hoped that Ntsebeza, who seemed to grow increasingly frustrated towards the end of the hearings but managed to remain in control and exude a definite air of fairness, is able to produce a final report that CSA can call into service to ensure they continue the progress in transformation that they have made.

The importance of the SJN is to guide CSA into the future and not to settle the scores of those who are bitter, especially those who are chiefly responsible for their own demise.

Selection and quotas will always be a contentious issue. And even though Khaya Zondo was clearly unfairly treated in 2015, it is difficult to say it was on the basis of his colour given the fact that Black people, and not just De Villiers, were involved in that controversy.

Speaking of being unfair, July himself admitted that targets were discriminatory but were designed to undo previous wrongs. It is an argument with huge merit, but the other side of the coin is that innocent people are being punished for the sins of their fathers.

I always think the opinions of West Indian great Michael Holding should guide one’s view in most cricketing discussions. But even he appeared a bit stumped by the whole quotas issue when he addressed the SJN hearings at their closure.

Calling them “an unnecessary burden” for players of colour, allowing the churlish to say they are only in the team because of regulations, he added that he understood the reason for them because people wanted to see a team that is fully representative and that the fear is, without quotas, this will not happen quickly enough.

Holding said he hoped they would eventually no longer be necessary.

My hope is that the SJN leads to exactly that, where all cricketers in this country have an equal opportunity to play for the Proteas.

Cricket South Africa’s Members Council announced on Thursday that they have declined to accept the interim board they themselves were part of compiling, sending them on a collision course with Minister of Sport Nathi Mthethwa.

The Members Council said in their statement that they will no longer recognise the interim board due to material differences between the two bodies in relation to conflicts of interest, lines of responsibility and accountability, and a breakdown in the relationship between the provincial presidents and the nine would-be directors that were agreed to during the negotiation process between CSA, the Minister of Sport, Sascoc and the South African Cricketers’ Association.

“The Members Council is not prepared to appoint the members of the proposed interim board to be directors of CSA in terms of the MOI. However, the Members Council will continue to work with the Minister, the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture, and Sascoc on a collaborative basis to address and correct the ills of the past. The basis for the relationship between the parties is clearly prescribed by the law and requires mutual respect by all parties in complying with their obligations,” acting CSA president Rihan Richards said.

By threatening the Minister with legal proceedings, CSA could open themselves up to terrible consequences, including Mthethwa withdrawing their right to represent the country, thereby scuppering the England tour later this month, as well as the upcoming Tests against Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Australia. The financial damage to CSA would be devastating.

Unsurprisingly, CSA’s latest act of defiance has not gone down terribly well with the interim board.

Judge Zak Yacoob, the chairman of the interim board, issued a statement saying the “current situation was untenable” and that they were “determined to continue our work in the public interest and in the best interests of cricket in South Africa”.

“We are thus dismayed to be in receipt of what we can only describe as an obstructionist, legalistic letter from the Members’ Council while we have tried to put structures in place and hold individuals within CSA to account. We are of the view that the conduct of the Members’ Council is an attempt to stymie the work of our Board.

“The Board has been hard at work for the past two weeks since being mandated by the Minister to restore the credibility of CSA. It accepted this mandate publicly and with due care. The failures of corporate governance within Cricket SA are well-known and the cricket-loving public has watched Cricket SA lurch from crisis to crisis,” Yacoob said.