BRIEFING BY THE SABC BOARD

2. BRIEFING BY THE SABC BOARD • Implementation of the recommendations of the Public Protector Report: When Governance and Ethics Fail. • The Board approved the submission of a detailed Implementation Plan together with supporting documents relating to the improvement of governance throughout the SABC. This was submitted to the Public Protector on 22 August 2014 who submitted a written acknowledgement of receipt on 25 August 2014. • On 12 February 2016, a further request for the Implementation Plan was received from the Office of the Public Protector. A copy of the Implementation Plan was submitted on the same day. • The Board and employees of the SABC regard corporate governance as fundamental to the success of the business and are fully committed to ensuring that good governance is practised in order that the SABC remains a sustainable and viable business. This commitment is embraced at all levels of the SABC.

3. BRIEFING BY THE SABC BOARD • Actions the Board has taken in light of the decision of the SCA ruling. • In terms of the ruling of Davis J, Paragraphs 52 and 53 on page 28, states: • [52] There is a further implication which follows therefrom. As indicated earlier, this case is not about Mr Motsoeneng. Mr Maenetje, who appeared together with Ms Rajah on behalf of first to third respondent, submitted in his careful argument that there is no basis by which this court could determine the outcome of this disciplinary hearing. Accordingly, if Mr Motsoeneng is acquitted of all of the charges which are to be determined by a disciplinary tribunal, it was possible that he could then be considered for appointment as a permanent COO of the SABC. In other words, it would be "a bridge too far" to grant the applicant relief within the terms sought, namely to direct the Board to recommend the appointment of suitably qualified COO within 60 days of the order of this court and hence ignore the outcome of the disciplinary process.

4. BRIEFING BY THE SABC BOARD • Actions the Board has taken in light of the decision of the SCA ruling. • In terms of the ruling of Davis J, Paragraphs 52 and 53 on page 28, states: • [53] Much has been made by respondents of Mr Motsoeneng's achievements at the SABC and his 'unique' ability to be the COO of the SABC. If it is properly shown that none of the allegations made against him are sustainable, it would be unfair and, hence premature at this stage, to preclude him from such consideration. In summary, it is preferable to allow the relevant disciplinary proceedings to run its course and to reflect this finding in the order. Hence, I agree with Mr Maenetje that this is the prudent course of action. Accordingly I propose to tailor the order which is to be granted accordingly.

5. BRIEFING BY THE SABC BOARD • Actions the Board has taken in light of the decision of the SCA ruling. • Mr Motsoeneng went through a transparent and independent Disciplinary Hearing and was cleared of all charges. Based on the ruling above from Davis J in the Western Cape High Court (case no. 12497/2014), Mr Motsoeneng ought not to be excluded from applying for the position of the COO once it is advertised. In fact the ruling did not exclude him from being appointed as the Acting COO. • Consequently, the Board was requested to approve a recommendation to the Shareholder to appoint Mr Motsoeneng in the position of Acting COO on a Round Robin basis and this resolution was approved by the majority of the Board. • The Minister declined the appointment and requested that additional names of senior employees be submitted. This was done and an Acting COO was appointed. • In the process of appointing an Acting COO Management and the Board held the rule of law sacrosanct in that they have complied with the judgments handed down. At no time did any of the judgments state that Mr Motsoeneng had to be dismissed as an employee.

6. BRIEFING BY THE SABC BOARD • Process followed in the appointment of former Chief Operations Officer to the position of Group Executive: Corporate Affairs. • The SABC considered the judgement, which set aside the appointment ofMr G H Motsoeneng as the permanent COO. In terms of the law you cannot place someone in a worse position. The Executive Directors reviewed the options for him to be appointed in a suitable executive position. The only vacancy was that of the GE: HR but because he has no competency in this regard he could not be considered for this position. • Ms Tugwana’s services have been retained in order to transfer her broadcasting skills and she could therefore be placed in the position of GE: Special Projects since Mr Motsoeneng’s competency is in the Stakeholder functions and which was the position he occupied prior to being appointed as the Acting COO and subsequently the permanent COO. The SABC reorganised it structure, which was approved by the Board at its meeting of 25 February 2016, in order to improve deliverables and the position formerly known as GE Stakeholder was renamed GE: Corporate Affairs, which deals with all matters relating to Stakeholders.

7. BRIEFING BY THE SABC BOARD • Implications of the high court, SCA and ICASA ruling on the Board Charter. • There are no implications • Compliance of the Board to Section 13 and Section 15 of the Broadcasting Act. • In terms of Section 13: it is the role of the PCC to select the non-executive directors for recommendation to the National Assembly for appointment by the Honourable President • In terms of Section 15: The Board does comply with this Section