Ken Borland

Cricket South Africa’s Interim Board have clarified the process for the appointment of independent directors and, as long as the Members Council are still behaving like adults and have given the new MoI majority approval by 11am on Wednesday morning, what the new constitution says about the recruitment of new board members will be thoroughly explained to the public.

The Interim Board on Wednesday morning disputed suggestions published by The Citizen that they have any knowledge of who the applicants to be independent directors are and that they play any role in drawing up a shortlist for the Nominations Committee.

“The Interim Board does not know who has applied and will not be involved in the nominations process other than recruiting one former CSA president to serve on the Nominations Committee. All the applications are under lock and key in the office and will be passed on directly from the office to the Nominations Committee as soon as they are in place,” Interim Board spokeswoman Judith February told The Citizen.

The Interim Board hope to make the whole Memorandum of Incorporation public once the Special Resolution accepting it has been confirmed and will hold a briefing to take the media through the process thereafter.

The Nominations Committee also needs to be put in place later this week and that six-member panel will comprise 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 Interim Board is certainly not going to be appointing the new board and according to our agreement with the sports minister, nobody from the Interim Board is going to be standing for the new board,” February added.

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.

Cricket South Africa are fighting lots of legal battles at the moment, but possibly the most damaging to their reputation has just been made public as former England captain Karen Smithies has served the embattled organisation legal papers alleging discrimination during last year’s interview process for the position of Proteas Women’s team manager.

Smithies, who led England to the World Cup title in 1993, has been a highly-respected administrator and manager of the Titans team for the last 20 years and played a key role in the growth of the women’s game in this country in the early 2000s.

But Smithies has now made the shock claim that CSA rejected her application to be Proteas Women’s manager due to her being “bisexual or lesbian”, according to the organisation’s disgraced former head of HR, Chantal Moon. And Smithies has the recordings to prove it.

For an organisation that is trumpeting diversity as a core value and riding the wave of the tremendous recent success of the national women’s team, the revelations are deeply embarrassing and disturbing.

The online interview was held on June 9 last year via Teams before a panel comprising Moon, who has subsequently been dismissed as she was not properly qualified for her job, director of cricket Graeme Smith, head of player pathways Eddie Khoza and high performance manager Vincent Barnes.

Smith left the meeting after the interview, but the other three then discussed Smithies without realising that their conversation was still being recorded.

The legal papers allege that Moon pointed out that Smithies is “bisexual or lesbian”, to which Khoza responded that she “is in a life partnership with a previous South African women’s captain”. Moon then said there was a risk that Smithies would get “involved in some darling-darling relationship with one of the players”.

Barnes pointed out that it would not be right to appoint a “White Pommie instead of a Black African Male [current manager Sedibu Mohlaba].

The comments are an obvious case of discrimination against Smithies personally because national women’s captain Dane van Niekerk is married to team-mate Marizanne Kapp and there are other relationships within the squad. Coach Hilton Moreeng is a man but nobody has ever raised any concerns about him having a relationship with one of the players.

Smithies told The Citizen on Saturday that the initial hurt of the comments has been exacerbated by CSA’s steadfast refusal to respond to any of her complaints, forcing her to go the legal route.

“I felt so hurt and very disappointed that my career and achievements all came down to that one thing [her sexuality]. These are people I know well and I just wanted an apology and an acknowledgement that what happened was wrong. I’ve tried everything possible to avoid going to court, sent so many letters, but CSA have not had the decency to reply to one of them,” Smithies said.

Long-serving Proteas manager and doctor Mohammed Moosajee remembers being made to bat in fading light at Transvaal nets in the early days of unity and he says such biases still exist in South African cricket, calling for a sporting version of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to help the healing process.

Moosajee was a fine cricketer who captained the South African Cricket Board version of the SA Schools side and was 23 years old when Unity happened. And yet he never added to his seven first-class caps when the new dispensation arrived.

“In 1992 when Unity happened, I was in the prime of my career and part of Transvaal training. But us guys from the SACB clubs only got to bat once the light was going down and there’s no doubt we had to work much harder because there was inherent bias. I felt we maybe came back into international cricket too easily, we sacrificed too much to appease the politicians.

“We must understand that prejudice is still very much part and parcel of our country, some still remains and we can’t just wish it away. There is no trust nor healing in cricket and we desperately need our own TRC because cricket is just a microcosm and reflection of a racist society. And our coaches also need to be given a platform because they are the ones who need to foster Black excellence,” Moosajee said at a recent Ahmed Kathrada Foundation webinar on racism in cricket.

Moosajee, who is now serving on the South African Cricketers’ Association management board, was adamant, however, that the Cricket South Africa Board should not be allowed to get their grubby little mitts on the TRC process.

“I am encouraged by the Cricket for Social Justice programme but we mustn’t forget it was set up by the same CSA who have had a litany of governance issues, if you are having continuous problems in the boardroom then it will impact on the delivery of transformation. So what credibility do CSA have? I will support it if it is run independently and not by CSA, if there is to be any credibility then the current Board cannot be involved.

“The most important stakeholders in coming up with solutions are the players and CSA must ask themselves why a few months ago they were in court fighting against their own players? There are people on that Board lining their pockets with directors’ fees and not taking into account proper corporate governance. Who will police the police? The Board cannot judge themselves,” Moosajee said.

The longest-serving member of the Proteas staff (from 2003 to the end of last year’s World Cup) said South African cricket has nevertheless come a far way from those early days of unity.

“In 2003 when I was appointed team doctor some of the squad members were uncomfortable not having a White doctor, but it did not bother me at all because they had no choice but to develop that trust. And in my early days as manager – it happened overseas as well, specifically in England and Australia – officials would try and bypass me and go directly to the coach.

“But after our first culture camp in 2010 we developed an authentic, emotional identity because we considered our fractured past, our history and our diversity. We wanted to use the fact we were the most diverse team in the world as an advantage and it was no surprise in 2012 when we became the first team to be ranked number one across all formats,” Moosajee explained.

Part of that process has been educating people that some of their simplistic views needed to evolve from bigotry to tolerance.

“When we would go to India and people were called “Chillipips”, they needed to be educated; when we went to Bangladesh and the call-to-prayer happened and guys would ask why they are screaming, they needed to be educated, and that’s what we tried to do from 2010 onwards. Culture is probably the most misunderstood part of any organisation but it can be the deciding factor in success or failure.

“But we also need to be honest. With a number of coaches and selectors, the challenge is an unconscious bias, but CSA also needed to stand up and take responsibility for things like the 2015 World Cup and four players of colour, because they left a lot to interpretation. Players of colour continue to feel unsupported and we need to applaud someone like Lungi Ngidi, a champion young man who showed awareness and spoke out,” Moosajee said.