Ken Borland

Hot on the heels of the new Cricket South Africa board protesting that they inherited the mess that was the Social Justice and Nation-Building hearings, there is a second legacy of the old, disgraced board that may also cause them strife in the coming months.

I do have some sympathy for chairman Lawson Naidoo and his fellow directors when they ask with some frustration, in the wake of CSA’s embarrassing arbitration loss to Graeme Smith, “What were we supposed to do?”

The fact that SJN ombudsman Dumisa Ntsebeza chose only to make “tentative findings” on “untested evidence”, but was quite happy to make public claims of racism (surely the most damaging allegation against a White South African), meant CSA were almost damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

If they failed to further investigate the SJN allegations, then they would have been accused of ignoring the systemic racism that no doubt was part of our cricket in previous decades. But by acting on the claims against Smith, they left themselves open to criticisms of a witch-hunt and slander because the evidence was so flimsy.

Naidoo and fellow director Steven Budlender, the noted advocate, defended themselves in a Daily Maverick article this week, but what they did not mention was the way CSA’s legal representatives handled themselves in the arbitration, being criticised by the officials for “changing their tack” in the middle of the hearings and “trying to trap Smith”.

Little wonder costs were awarded against CSA.

Because the SJN was not properly set up to hear and test such inflammatory evidence in a better-controlled legal environment, the previous board certainly left Naidoo and Co with an explosive booby-trap.

The other decision of the previous board that is now causing some unhappiness in cricket circles is the automatic promotion/relegation that will apply at the end of next summer and see one of the top eight teams go down to the second division.

At the moment, one of Northern Cape, KZN Inland or South-Western Districts look set to be promoted. The Free State Knights, based in Bloemfontein, are bottom of the Division One relegation standings, with North-West (Potchefstroom) and the KZN Dolphins (Durban) tied second-from-bottom. Even teams like Western Province (Cape Town) and the Eastern Province Warriors (PE) have anxious times ahead as they are only lead the Knights by 10 points.

Do CSA really want one of those major centres to miss out as the likes of Kimberley, Pietermaritzburg or Oudtshoorn have a Division One team instead?

The problem with automatic promotion/relegation is that it is unlikely, barring a mass defection of players, that the team coming up will be better than the side going down, given the quality of cricket played in Division II.

There are many good reasons to ensure teams in the lower division can work their way up into the premier section, but the majority of fans do not want to see the Dolphins, Western Province or the Central Gauteng Lions playing in the second league. Imagine iconic stadiums like Newlands, the Wanderers or Kingsmead not hosting the best domestic players?

The only reason teams like KZN or the Lions, who would have been involved in the relegation battle before their surprise victory in the One-Day Cup right at the end of the season, would find themselves in danger of going down is because they provide most of the Proteas team.

There are many who feel automatic promotion/relegation is there to ensure the smaller unions, whose votes are often like the tail wagging the dog, share a place at the top table for at least one season before themselves being demoted.

I know CSA have a lot on their plate, but tweaking this system to ensure the Division II winners are only promoted if they beat the bottom side in Division I, is hopefully going to become a priority.

Despite their dodgy origin, there are many who believed the Social Justice and Nation-Building (SJN) hearings would be a very good idea, something necessary to try and heal the increasingly polarised and embittered environment of South African cricket.

But now that the SJN report has been made public, what a grave disappointment it has been and what a waste of R7.5 million. So much evidence has simply been ignored or totally misinterpreted and the legal flaws within the findings reflect very poorly on Advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza’s standing as one of our finest jurists. Never mind the poor job done by his assistants from Werksmans Attorneys.

It is now clear that the entire focus of the SJN was on getting dirt on Graeme Smith and Mark Boucher. Addressing historic wrongs and racial discrimination was just a side project.

Ntsebeza has found Smith’s appointment as director of cricket to be irregular and has also accused him of racist behaviour in the past. This is despite what I thought was compelling evidence presented by the likes of Cricket South Africa, the South African Cricketers’ Association and former Proteas manager Mohammed Moosajee.

The report almost entirely ignores all of that and goes way outside of its mandate in slamming Smith’s appointment. Surely Ntsebeza is aware that headhunting is a common occurrence in the corporate world and his appointment was approved by a number of people, the majority of whom were Black?

But no, it was racist. As was Boucher’s selection as Proteas head coach.

Enoch Nkwe is a very good coach and, in an ideal world, should be the successor to Boucher. But to say he was discriminated against based on the colour of his skin is ridiculous. It ignores the fact Boucher had more experience and more success coaching at the level below the Proteas and the wicketkeeper/batsman’s immense international knowledge from his playing days.

Three franchise trophies in one season point to Nkwe’s potential, but to equate trophies won in second-tier cricket in the Netherlands, semi-pro cricket or junior weeks, and even a second place in the Canadian T20 league, with Boucher’s achievements is ludicrous. The report also makes no mention of the 3-0 hammering South Africa suffered in India under Nkwe as interim head coach just before Boucher’s arrival.

The SJN could really have done with some advice from an ex cricketer or anyone with some idea of how high-performance sport works. The total lack of expertise in this regard has been made clear by the report. There was an early warning sign of this when legal assistant Sandile July asked why Imran Tahir had not stepped down from the Proteas team to allow another spinner a chance!

I also believe Mr July exhibited a lack of impartiality in his examination of those witnesses who had been implicated. He seemed to implicitly believe that the evidence of the complainants, even those dishonest individuals banned from the game for their involvement in matchfixing, was true.

The allegation made this week that over 250 paragraphs of the complainants’ heads of argument, which were written by July and Fumisa Ngqele, have been simply cut and pasted word-for-word directly into the ombudsman’s report, reflects poorly on the fairness of the SJN process.

These are not just minor matters that need amendment. Most damning of all is Ntsebeza’s own admission in his closing remarks that the evidence presented was not able to be tested. He says he cannot make definitive findings, describing his own conclusions as being “tentative”.

And yet he has happily painted Smith, Boucher, AB de Villiers and various other former players and officials as being racist. The decent thing for Ntsebeza to do would be to pay back half the R7.5 million to CSA for doing half a job, never mind the compensation he might have to fork out for the damage he has done to the reputations of people based on “untested evidence” and “tentative findings”.

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.

The Social Justice and Nation-Building hearings resumed this week with those implicated in the earlier sittings getting the chance to answer their accusers and it seems the first half of the commission had several charlatans giving evidence.

It just goes to show the importance of hearing both sides of the story before jumping to sensational conclusions.

Clear problems have been identified like the Dolphins’ handling of Aya Myoli’s assault by Robbie Frylinck, the millions of rand which Easterns have been given to uplift development clubs but which have not been distributed to them and Khaya Zondo’s non-selection in 2015.

Myoli’s treatment is particularly shocking: because Frylinck negotiated a plea bargain that included confidentiality, Myoli, despite being the victim, was never informed of the outcome of the disciplinary hearing back in 2016 and had no idea some form of justice had been done.

But there has also been much evidence that previous testimony has come from embittered former players, especially those convicted of matchfixing offences.

We heard stories of players who had a history of creating divisions within their team, players who complained of being underpaid in comparison to White players when the facts showed that for eight of their seasons with a franchise they were within the top-four salary-earners, and international stars who complained about being discriminated against but failed 15 different fitness tests but were considered undroppable due to quotas.

While some of this has undoubtedly been mischievous, there have also been understandable misunderstandings and it has been good this week to see much of the air cleared up.

Enoch Nkwe’s demotion from interim head coach to assistant coach was controversial and sinister undertones were detected when then acting CSA chief executive Jacques Faul held a meeting with him over cappuccinos at Pearl Valley after Faul had met with SACA, the players’ association.

But Faul pointed out this week that he set up the meeting with Nkwe, along with director of cricket Graeme Smith, head coach Mark Boucher and captain Faf du Plessis in order to allow them to try and find common ground because he was desperately keen to keep Nkwe involved with the Proteas.

Empty vessels make the most noise, so the saying goes, but amidst all the loud cries of racial discrimination why hasn’t there been more noise over the fact that the Black-dominated previous CSA Board was seriously underpaying Nkwe as well as manager Khomotso Volvo Masubelele?

When Faul, who had been acting CEO before in 2012/13, returned to CSA in December 2019, he was shocked to find Nkwe and Masubelele were earning less than what their predecessors were getting in 2012. And this was approved by a CSA Board which only featured a couple of Whites and former CEO Thabang Moroe. The same people who appointed Smith as director of cricket and approved Boucher as the head coach.

Also giving evidence this week was former Proteas manager Mohammed Moosajee, a man who has contributed immensely to South African cricket and is as committed to transformation and excellence as anyone. He is a cricket man through and through.

As usual, he made perfect sense when he called for the Proteas to have a unified stance towards BLM, rather than the currently awkward situation where some people are kneeling, others are not; some fists are raised, others are not. As is so often the case in South Africa, it comes down to education.

Moosajee pointed out that it was himself and vilified former captain Smith who actually came up with the concepts around a more inclusive team with a greater appreciation for people from different backgrounds, races and religions.

As Moosajee pointed out, there is still work to be done to ensure the Proteas are a fully transformed and successful outfit, one which returns to the top table of world cricket. But much progress has been made in the last dozen years.