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of racism made against them; “if so, this is very serious and the findings against them will ultimately need to be withdrawn,” Becker said.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.

The Social Justice and Nation-Building Report released on Wednesday not only claims the appointments of CSA director of cricket Graeme Smith and Proteas head coach Mark Boucher were irregular but also alludes to “racial discrimination” on their behalves.

Despite these highly-damaging accusations, Advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza’s report concludes with admissions that “it cannot make definite findings”, “there was no process in place for testing the submissions” and that his recommendations and findings are “merely tentative”.

Smith’s appointment as Director of Cricket in December 2019 was labelled as “flawed” because South Africa’s most successful captain was headhunted for the position, a common practice in the corporate world. He was initially approached by former CEO Thabang Moroe, who was soon after dismissed by CSA for numerous incidents of maladministration, but still had the gall to criticise Smith’s appointment at the SJN.

The fact that Smith did not want to work under Moroe or former Board president Chris Nenzani, both of whom have left their posts under a cloud, was described as “racial bias against Black management”. The report makes no mention of the fact that Smith has continued to work under Black African Acting CEO Pholetsi Moseki and generic Black board president Lawson Naidoo since then with no issues.

Smith’s subsequent appointment of “his friend” Boucher as head coach was also stated to be an example of “unfair discirimination” based on race, because he was chosen ahead of Enoch Nkwe, who was the interim head coach.

The report lists Boucher’s five franchise trophies in three seasons as coach of the Titans, but then compares them, as equivalents, with two second-tier titles in the Netherlands, a Cubs Week triumph, three amateur cups with the Gauteng Strikers and three franchise titles won by Nkwe. No mention is made of South Africa’s three heavy defeats under Nkwe in India on their previous assignment.

Despite Boucher’s immense international playing experience, it concludes that the record-breaking wicketkeeper/batsman was appointed due to the colour of his skin.

Ex Proteas bowler and KZN Coastal coach Roger Telemachus, who has never led a franchise team, was also ruled to have been discriminated against.

The relatively new board will now have to extricate themselves from a dangerous situation in terms of legal liability, with an initiative set up by the previous board making serious allegations which have already attracted the interest of several affected parties’ lawyers.

Numerous people found to have engaged in racist conduct by the report are believed to have received no notice that they had been implicated, and at least one leading lawyer has sent a 17-page e-mail to the CSA Board warning that the report is seriously flawed in legal terms.

For now, the CSA directors are Out of Office, but they will have to grapple with the SJN issue in the new year.

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.