Ken Borland

Lawyers for various respondents implicated in the Social Justice and Nation-Building Report have stated Cricket South Africa’s board will need to consider “a number of fundamental flaws” in both the process and the findings of ombudsman Dumisa Ntsebeza.

David Becker, the former head of the International Cricket Council’s legal department and the attorney of CSA director of cricket Graeme Smith, issued a statement on Thursday evening on behalf of the lawyers of the respondents, saying there were “concerns about the integrity of the process”.

Smith, through Becker, is going to be fighting the allegations in the report that his appointment as director of cricket was “irregular” and that he was guilty of racial discrimination both in his current position and when he was captain of the Proteas.

“CSA is going to have to consider a number of fundamental flaws in the ombud’s process which have been raised by several respondents,’ Becker said.

“How do you make far-reaching and public findings of racial prejudice … and in the same breath say that they are ‘tentative’ … ? How is CSA expected to implement those findings when the ombudsman has said, by his own admission, that he ‘cannot make definitive findings’ … where the evidence … was not tested.

“Why wasn’t the evidence properly tested? The ombudsman had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses … and didn’t take that opportunity,” Becker said.

Ntsebeza was constantly trying to buy himself more time for a process that CSA had already extended from four months to six months, which the organisation said had cost them R7.5 million rather than the budgeted R5 million. And yet Becker criticised the process as still being lacking.

His statement pointed out that certain respondents were not properly informed of the allegations of racism made against them; “if so, this is very serious and the findings against them will ultimately need to be withdrawn,” Becker said.

Significant conflicts of interest were also raised because lawyers Sandile July and Fumisa Ngqele had a dual role of not only advising the ombud but also drafting heads of argument for the complainants. Becker alleged that “over 250 paragraphs of the complainants’ heads of argument have been simply cut and pasted word-for-word directly into the ombudsman’s report”.

Becker also said some of Ntsebeza’s findings were “entirely questionable and without any basis”. He pointed to the finding that Smith’s refusal to work under former CSA CEO Thabang Moroe was evidence of his racial bias as ignoring the fact that the director of cricket has happily worked under acting CEO Pholetsi Moseki and three Black CSA presidents since his appointment.

The SJN Report also largely ignores the 250 pages of evidence submitted by the South African Cricketers’ Association dealing with the allegations against the players’ union.

Becker pointed out that two full days were granted to the four players found guilty in the 2015 matchfixing investigation, with Ntsebeza later describing their evidence as a “red herring”.

Former Proteas captain AB de Villiers has already taken public umbrage at the findings of the Social Justice and Nation-Building Report and other players and officials who have been named will also be expressing their unhappiness in letters to the Cricket South Africa board.

SJN ombudsman Dumisa Ntsebeza accused De Villiers of unfair discrimination based on racial grounds due to his leading role in the non-selection of Khaya Zondo for the decisive last ODI of their tour to India in 2015.

De Villiers, who stated in his affidavit to the SJN that he had earlier been told by the selectors that Zondo was in the squad as a learning experience and not to be part of the playing XI, responded on social media with a message saying his opposition to the then-uncapped Zondo’s selection was purely based on cricketing reasons.

“Throughout my career, I expressed honest cricketing opinions only ever based on what I believed was best for the team, never based on anyone’s race. That’s the fact,” De Villiers said.

The CSA board will consider what action to take based on the report in the new year.

The fact that Ntsebeza himself admitted that the SJN “cannot make definite findings”, “there was no process in place for testing the submissions” and that his recommendations and findings are “merely tentative”, will give the board some leeway, especially since so many of the implicated are lawyering up.

Others, however, have expressed their lack of confidence in the ability of the entire process to treat them fairly.

“I am afraid there isn’t much to say that will benefit me at all. I was found guilty before any response by a kangaroo court,” one former player told The Citizen on condition of anonymity.

“I am trying to take the higher ground without it being a tit-for-tat argument, but I am spending too much on lawyer’s fees already.

“But it doesn’t suit the narrative, I am not holding my breath, we’ve been hung out to dry, so I am not expecting that to change,” he said.

De Villiers has, of course retired from all cricket and so is out of CSA’s jurisdiction, but the originators of the SJN hearings have wanted the prize heads of Proteas coach Mark Boucher and director of cricket Graeme Smith for a long time.

Ntsebeza has delivered what they wanted, but critics of the SJN report say his report is fatally flawed on legal grounds and CSA will undoubtedly have to tread carefully unless they are to find themselves embroiled in more courtroom battles.

SA Rugby on Thursday submitted to the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) that their remedies proposed in their draft findings into the broadcasting of sport by subscription television will lead to a severe reduction in the investment by these broadcasters in professional sport and will ultimately cost the Springboks the chance of adding to their 2019 World Cup victory.

Icasa have proposed that broadcast rights should not last longer than three years, that there should be no exclusive deals and that the rights should be split between multiple packages and broadcasters.

But in public hearings held virtually on Thursday, SA Rugby CEO Jurie Roux said the ‘remedies’ would be an unreasonable burden on the federation and would mean they are likely to lose their fight for survival in these times of Covid uncertainty, while Senior Counsel Ngwako Maenetje said Icasa would be acting “irrationally” and ultra vires (beyond their powers) if they enforced the changes.

“If the regulations go through in their current format then we may never see a day like the 2019 World Cup win again. SA Rugby needs to produce compelling content that is commercially viable so we can develop the game from grassroots level to winning national teams. We are 99.7% self-funded, we only get 0.3% of our income from government, and broadcast rights bring in R752 million,” Roux explained on Thursday.

According to the SA Rugby presentation, broadcast rights make up 58% of their income, and sponsorships, which are largely dependent on TV exposure, make up another 26%.

“We are in a daily fight for survival, we are in financial difficulty having made losses between 2016 and 2018. We recovered a little profit in 2019 on the back of the World Cup and we looked forward to capitalising on that but no-one could have predicted what happened in 2020. Covid has pushed us into survival mode and had a massive detrimental effect. We’ve had to cut our budget by R1.2 billion.

“It has made insolvency a real and present danger, we’re on the brink, and if we had not been able to capitalise on broadcast rights, we would have been bankrupt by now. Exclusivity is the main source of our revenue and with less money it means there will be less rugby until we have to close our doors and only have club rugby. And then nobody will be interested in the game,” Roux said.

Judging by the presentation of Maenetje SC, Icasa would probably face court action if they enforce the regulations.

“No Regulatory Impact Assessment was conducted by Icasa, which makes the proposals irrational, they did not inform themselves of the adverse effect of these remedies. These effects are not proportional because they place such a burden on the rights holder, rather than broadcasters, such that they will not be able to sustain themselves. Icasa have paid scant regard to the dire impact we explained in our written submissions.

“By weakening one side of the equation you do not grow competitiveness in the market, SA Rugby will no longer be in a position to provide premium content and there will be an adverse impact on public interest. These remedies are irrational, not lawful and unconstitutional. They do not encourage investment so they undermine the Icasa mandate and exceed the statutory powers of Icasa,” Maenetje said.

Icasa launched their inquiry into subscription television services to ensure the broadcast market is sufficiently competitive, but Roux says “these remedies will have the completely opposite effect to their noble intentions”.

“The obligation is on the broadcasters and not on the rights-holders, which is where Icasa are acting ultra vires. There was no discussion of the economic impact in their draft findings,” Maenetje says.