Dheven Dharmalingam – Bulletproof Truth

All the presidents’ people

A roll call of the more or less reprehensible in South African cricket, recording their names and the context of their involvement.

TELFORD VICE | Cape Town

DESPITE mounting pressure from every stakeholder in South African cricket, along with the threat of either state control or international suspension — or both — two votes went against appointing the interim board at CSA’s members council meeting on Monday.

The council is the game’s highest authority in the country, and thus central to the shambles cricket has been steered into during the last three years. So it was surprising that it initially rejected, in a letter to sports minister Nathi Mthethwa last Wednesday, the get-out-of-jail card represented by Mthethwa’s proposed interim board. Only following four meetings after that was the light seen, and even then not unanimously. That does not bode well for the hope that the board and the council find ways to work together, which both have expressed.

Council members received a summary of Monday’s vote, not a breakdown. Cricbuzz has been told who the dissenters might be, and has asked them to confirm. Neither has responded. Even so, we know who sits on the members council, and how long they have been there — crucial facts in the effort to root out the rot.

The structure normally comprises representatives of CSA’s 12 provincial affiliates, its two associates, and CSA’s president and vice-president. Of the current members, five were part of the council on September 28, 2017: Rudy Claassen, Craig Nel, Donovan May, Rihan Richards and Angelo Carolissen. A sixth who was around then, Oupa Nkagisang, hasn’t been part of council business since December 2018, when CSA took control of the affiliate he leads on claims of maladministration.

The 2017 date is important because it was when Thabang Moroe made the unlikely leap from serving as Gauteng’s president and CSA’s vice-president to CSA’s acting chief executive, a vacancy created by Haroon Lorgat’s engineered ousting. Also crucial is that it was the board, not the council, that installed Moroe despite the fact that — CSA told parliament in October — he was not qualified for the position.

The board responsible for appointing Moroe comprised Chris Nenzani, Beresford Williams, Richards, Zola Thamae, Tando Ganda, Faeez Jaffar, Norman Arendse, Mohammed Iqbal Khan, Dawn Mokhobo, Vusi Pikoli and Louis von Zeuner, although Arendse missed key meetings because of ill health. Along with Moroe, Nenzani, Williams, Thamae, Ganda and Richards also sat on the council at that stage. Richards is the only survivor who was part of both of those bodies. He is now the acting president of the council.

When Lorgat left CSA, it had a bank balance of the equivalent of USD73.7-million and did not want for sponsors. Moroe was appointed to the job proper by the board on July 17, 2018. When he was suspended on charges of serious misconduct in December, having given himself sweeping powers, it was projected that CSA would be USD68.4-million in debt by the end of the 2022 rights cycle. Sponsors had either announced their impending departure or were scaling back their commitment.

Tebogo Siko, Anne Vilas, Ben Dladla, Xolani Vonya, Xander Snyders, Ashraf Burns, Dawid Roodt and Simphiwe Ndzundzu became part of the council after Moroe was appointed in a permanent capacity, and thus cannot be blamed for abiding by the board’s decision. Vilas, Burns and Roodt came onto the council between May and August this year — after Moroe was suspended — so are unsullied by this saga.

The same cannot be said for Claassen, Nel, May, Richards, Siko and Carolissen. May and Siko joined the board last year, in February and September, and Carolissen in September 2018, so they are even more culpable. They didn’t help appoint Moroe, but they also didn’t stop him damaging the game.

After months of unheeded calls for the board to go, Nenzani resigned as CSA’s president on August 17. He was followed by the remaining members on October 25 and 26: Williams, Carolissen, May, Siko, Thamae, John Mogodi, Dheven Dharmalingham, Marius Schoeman, Eugenia Kula-Ameyaw and Vuyokazi Memani-Sedile. But Carolissen, May and Siko are still with us as affiliate presidents and thus council members.

The point of this roll call of the more or less reprehensible is to record the names of those involved in South African cricket’s ongoing ugliness and to sketch the context of their involvement. It isn’t intended to make for sparkling reading.

The names of 31 administrators are recorded above. That only three of them — Vilas, Burns and Roodt — can be given a clean audit is an indictment on the state of the game in this country. And even that is conditional: we don’t know whether any or two of them voted against the sanity of allowing the interim board to be appointed.

As for the other, blemished 28, we know what you did last summer. And the summer before that. And the one before that. And before that. And in the winters, too …

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

72 hours that shook SA cricket’s world

CSA’s entire board has resigned, although some will roam the game like zombies. What made them go after months of bloodymindedness, and what happens now?

TELFORD VICE | Cape Town

SEVENTY-TWO hours after Cricket South Africa’s (CSA) board were asked, not for the first time, to step aside and, also not for the first time, refused, all 10 directors had resigned.

The announcement that Zola Thamae, Marius Schoeman, Eugenia Kula-Ameyaw and Vuyokazi Memani-Sedile were out of the game was posted on CSA’s official twitter account on Monday morning.

They followed Beresford Williams, Angelo Carolissen, Donovan May, Tebogo Siko, John Mogodi and Dheven Dharmalingham, who quit on Sunday.

“After the Members’ Council had deliberated and resolved that in order to best serve the interest of cricket in South Africa, the entire Board should resign — which they did,” CSA tweeted. “All Independent and Non-Independent Directors have now resigned.”

What cricket’s stakeholders have been calling for since December has been achieved. Now what?

CSA are nominally led by Rihan Richards, the former board member who represents Northern Cape on the Members Council — cricket’s highest authority — of which he was named president on Sunday. But Richards could be reduced to a figurehead by Wednesday.

Sports minister Nathi Mthethwa will wait until close of business on Tuesday for CSA to argue against his intervention in their affairs. Whatever they say is unlikely to cut much ice with him.

Not so fast, sportslovers. Having allowed cricketminded South Africans to enjoy the moment of the despised board’s demise, CSA put out a lunchtime release that said: “All resignations are with immediate effect except for three members, namely, Zola Thamae, John Mogodi and Donovan May, who will remain as directors until the interim board structure has been appointed to ensure the continuity and stability of the organisation.”

The release also said Richards would chair this zombie board, which might not be with us for long.

Mthethwa will probably instruct the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (Sascoc) to establish an interim structure to control cricket, at least until CSA’s annual meeting on December 5.

Speculation on who might be part of this body is running wild, but it seems sure to include a respected former player and a figure who has high level experience with the International Cricket Council.

South Africans more interested in who is on the field rather than in the boardroom should be assured that the domestic season will still start on November 2, and that England remain on course to send their men’s team to the country on November 16 to play six white-ball internationals.

But what changed between the Members Council asking the board to go at a meeting on Thursday night, and being rebuffed, and Monday morning?

Because the players in this contest wear collar and tie and not pads and helmets doesn’t make the question any less intriguing.

The answer could lay in the weakness that has been baked into CSA’s organisational design. The same Members Council that asked the board to resign includes six now former board members — who opposed the proposal when it was debated.

But they were outvoted by the eight people on the Members Council who were not on the board, and it was resolved that the board should be asked to relinquish their positions.

That put the suits who were on both structures in an invidious position. They couldn’t very well refuse to enact, at board level, a Members Council resolution they had been part of, even though they had dissented. Once the decision to ask the board to quit had been made they were duty bound to walk the Members Council’s talk.

Even so, except for Williams, the non-independent directors will remain on the Members Council as provincial representatives.

That no doubt accounts for the jarringly touchy feely tone of other CSA tweets on Monday: “The Members’ Council thanks every member who diligently served on the Board and selflessly sacrificed their time for extended and often, overwhelming periods, to assist [CSA].

“The Members’ Council appreciates their commitment to cricket and despite the turbulent economic climate, CSA, under their leadership, received an unqualified audit for the financial year ending 30 April 2020. The Council wishes them well in their future endeavours.”

The undearly departed directors should be under no illusion that that sentiment is shared in the provinces from which most of them came, and to which they owed their places on the board.

“It’s a shit show,” Garret Perry, the vice-chair of the Nelson Mandela Bay Cricket Association and the president of Port Elizabeth Cricket Club, told Daily Maverick on Monday.

“Maybe it’s because there are people in important positions at CSA who have never played the game, or maybe because they are trying to make as much as they can out of cricket.

“But you get the feeling that people who do want to give back to the game and want to do the right thing — people like [former acting chief executive] Jacques Faul — are worked out of their positions.”

Independent directors are not part of the Members Council, so aren’t subject to the kind of pressure faced by non-independents.

But when the independent Dharmalingham — the only director who was willing to resign on Thursday — went on Sunday, the other independents, Schoeman, Kula-Ameyaw and Memani-Sedile, had nowhere to hide.

Dharmalingham, who chaired the finance committee, and Schoeman, who was in charge of the social and ethics committee, brought competence to a structure in dire need of exactly that. But the removal of Kula-Ameyaw, the transformation chair, will not be lamented.

Faul’s resignation on August 17 is understood to have been fallout from the publication in the Sunday Times of a full-page advertisement that cost CSA R521,000 — and which was placed at Kula-Ameyaw’s insistence.

The chief financial officer and the chief executive were required to approve expenditure of that size. Pholetsi Moseki, the CFO, at first opposed it but then made a curious about turn. Faul was never in favour, and maintained his stance. The advertisement was published nonetheless.

Dharmalingham boxed clever in his explanation to parliament on October 13: “As a non-exec director, we do not have any mandate to authorise any expenditure. So, from that perspective, Dr Eugenia could not have authorised that expenditure.

“In terms of the process within the organisation, any procurement goes through procurement and, depending on the quantum — and in this case the quantum was such that it had to be approved by at least the CFO and the CEO — in this scenario it was actually approved by the CFO and it was done within his mandate.”

The fact that Faul did not sign the purchase order, as he would have had to do for the money to be spent legitimately, was conveniently glossed over.

By then, it was plain Kula-Ameyaw was ill-suited to her role. On August 28 she told a press conference: “What I don’t like about cricket is they don’t predict how long they will play. Football is 45, 45 [minutes]; then you are done. I only watch the highlights of cricket, not the whole game. I don’t have time for that.”

On September 16, after Momentum, one of CSA’s few remaining sponsors, said they were ending most of their relationship with cricket, she tweeted: “Momentum forgets that we invest hundreds of millions in Momentum in our SOE [state-owned enterprises] and pension funds. I remember asking for the BBBEE [broad-based black economic empowerment, and affirmative action policy] certificate in my other board.”

Momentum are a Level One Contributor in BBBEE terms, the highest certification there is, and they have a BBBEE recognition level of 135%.

Kula-Ameyaw had ended her tweet: “Just check before you make an irrational decision.”

Sound advice. Clearly, it was not taken.

First published by Daily Maverick.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

Four more run … from the game … Nathi’s in the mood

“All resignations are with immediate effect except for three members …” – CSA take 10 steps forward, three steps backward.

TELFORD VICE | Cape Town

THE resignations of the remaining four CSA board members were revealed on Monday, a day after six others quit. That clears the way for an interim structure to be put in place by government, through its satellites, to run the game.

Former acting president Beresford Williams led the way out of the organisation on Sunday. He was followed by Angelo Carolissen, Donovan May, Tebogo Siko, John Mogodi and Dheven Dharmalingham. Only Zola Thamae, Marius Schoeman, Eugenia Kula-Ameyaw and Vuyokazi Memani-Sedile were left.

But, on Monday morning, CSA tweeted: “After the members council had deliberated and resolved that in order to best serve the interest of cricket in South Africa, the entire board should resign — which they did. All independent and non-independent directors have now resigned.”

A few hours later, CSA appeared to backtrack in a release that said: “All resignations are with immediate effect except for three members, namely, Zola Thamae, John Mogodi and Donovan May, who will remain as directors until the interim board structure has been appointed to ensure the continuity and stability of the organisation.”

The release said Rihan Richards, who was appointed acting president of the members council on Sunday, would chair the board comprising Thamae, Mogodi and May.

That comes after umpteen calls from a range of stakeholders, since December, for the board to go. And a day before CSA runs out of time to tell sports minister Nathi Mthethwa why he shouldn’t intervene in the game.

Mthethwa first gave the job of sorting out cricket to the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC), which in September told CSA’s now former board and key executives to step aside while a task team investigated the game’s ills. The board refused, and left SASCOC with the impression that it would unleash lawyers to avoid being usurped. SASCOC passed the buck back to Mthethwa, who gave CSA until close of business on October 27 to argue against him taking action against it — which could include removing the Proteas from the international arena.

Whether the board’s resignation en masse will be enough to stop Mthethwa from exercising the more extreme aspects of his authority remains to be seen, especially as executive staff like acting chief executive Kugandrie Govender, director of cricket Graeme Smith and company secretary Welsh Gwaza appear to be still in their positions.

It is unclear who will be on the interim committee, although there seems to be support for a senior player representative and an ICC voice. Also not known is whether the game will be handed back to CSA after its annual meeting on December 5.

What is known is that the domestic season will start on November 2, and that England’s men’s team will arrive next month to play three ODIs and three T20Is.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

CSA board resignations: too few, too late

“CSA understands and appreciates the board members’ reasoning behind their resignations, based on their love for cricket and their respect of CSA.” – CSA’s twitter account is in deep denial.

TELFORD VICE | Cape Town

SIX Cricket South Africa (CSA) board members down. Four to go. And they may yet go quietly into that good night when the game no longer has to suffer some of the most reckless, thoughtless, damaging administrators in all of sport.

Beresford Williams resigned as CSA’s acting president on Sunday, along with five other board members: non-independents Angelo Carolissen, Donovan May, Tebogo Siko and John Mogodi, and Dheven Dharmalingham, an independent. That leaves Zola Thamae, a non-independent, and Marius Schoeman, Eugenia Kula-Ameyaw and Vuyokazi Memani-Sedile, independents all. But already there are whispers that they, too, are looking to make like Donald. As in Duck, not Allan.

No doubt sports minister Nathi Mthethwa, who is waiting until after Tuesday to tell CSA what he plans to do to them for running cricket into the ground, has noted the exits with satisfaction. The rest of us will wonder what the hell took them so long.

CSA have been in trouble more or less since September 2017, when Thabang Moroe was named acting chief executive. Despite him not meeting the minimum requirements for the job, the board appointed him permanently in July 2018. He was suspended in December last year and fired in August this year.

And that’s only one of the myriad self-harming catastrophes into which the board have shambled. Most of the board members who made the Moroe mess had left the organisation before Sunday and been replaced, but the staggering level of denial needed to allow this to be posted on CSA’s official twitter account even as the blood gleamed wet on the floor — “CSA understands and appreciates the board members’ reasoning behind their resignations, based on their love for cricket and their respect of CSA” — proves the problems remain rudely alive and shockingly well. A public apology is the least of what is required, but don’t hold your breath: you’re dealing with something like that other Donald. As in Trump.

Since December, sponsors, the South African Cricketers’ Association, the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (Sascoc), Mthethwa, the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Sport, Arts and Culture, and too many ordinary, ticket-buying, TV-watching, hero-worshipping cricketminded South Africans to count have all raged at CSA’s board.

But, as recently as September 18, Williams was going nowhere slowly. “I believe I’m still committed‚ I’m passionate‚ and can still contribute and serve the game; I choose not to go,” he replied when asked, during a press conference, why he had not resigned.

“We as a board and as collective leadership have dealt with matters head-on and I do believe we’re moving forward as a collective. I’ll continue to serve until such time as the members council decides otherwise.

“I took a decision that I either move on or I continue to serve. I decided on the latter to serve the game that I’m passionate about. I’ve been a servant of the game at various levels.

“If there was anything in which I believe I acted irresponsibly or not in the interests of the game as a director‚ I would have moved on.”

Presumably Williams felt the same way on Thursday when he and the rest of his board went into a meeting with the Members Council, CSA’s highest authority, but which includes six members of the board itself. Resignations were called for, and not given — not least because, Daily Maverick understands, board members were advised by powerful figures within CSA that there was no legal basis to demand that they remove themselves. You heard the man: “I choose not to go.”

What changed between Thursday and Sunday, when the members council met with the board again? That is not yet known. Neither do we know what will happen next.

But we can be fairly sure Mthethwa will tell Sascoc to appoint an interim committee to administer cricket at least until CSA’s annual meeting on December 5. That is likely to happen after close of business on Tuesday, when CSA run out of road to avoid the minister stepping in. And so he should.

For one thing, four board members are hanging on. For another, four of those who have quit are still on the Members Council. For still another, CSA have invented the position of “acting president of the Members Council” and given it to Northern Cape Cricket’s Rihan Richards — a former board member.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Please, Mr Mthethwa, do your worst.

First published by Daily Maverick.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

Looming Mthethwa deadline flushes CSA suits

“I wish and hope that CSA finds peace in the coming months and cricket takes centre stage.” – Dheven Dharmalingham after resigning from CSA’s board.

TELFORD VICE | Cape Town

PUSH finally came to shove for troubled CSA on Sunday, when acting president Beresford Williams led an exodus of six resignations from the board. The mass walkout follows months of calls from various stakeholders for the board to go, three days after it refused the latest demand that it do so, and two days before government is due to say what shape its promised intervention into the game’s affairs will take.

Williams, Angelo Carolissen, Donovan May, Tebogo Siko, John Mogodi and Dheven Dharmalingham all walked the plank. Only Zola Thamae, a non-independent, and Marius Schoeman, Eugenia Kula-Ameyaw and Vuyokazi Memani-Sedile, all independents, remain aboard the burning deck of cricket’s listing ship. But there are indications that they might also be on their way out.

Northern Cape Cricket president Rihan Richards, a former board member, has been installed as president of the members council, CSA’s highest authority where each of the 14 provinces is represented.

Williams, who assumed office when Chris Nenzani resigned in August, also left the members council — which still includes Carolissen, May, Siko and Mogodi. Whether their continued presence, and that of the four remaining board members, will prompt tough action from sports minister Nathi Mthethwa remains to be seen. Under South African law, Mthethwa has the authority to withdraw the Proteas from the international arena. But that seems unlikely as Mthethwa, along with the health and home affairs ministries, has granted permission for England to tour next month despite South Africa’s pandemic regulations keeping the borders closed to travellers from the United Kingdom.

Dharmalingham, who chaired the finance committee and first tendered his resignation on Friday, is the only non-independent board member who quit on Sunday. “I wish and hope that CSA finds peace in the coming months and cricket takes centre stage,” CSA quoted Dharmalingham as saying on its twitter account.

Peace is too ambitious a goal for an organisation that has lurched from one crisis to the next for the past three years. If they weren’t in trouble for shoddy management they were in the spotlight for questionable governance, and all against a backdrop of plummeting finances.

What will probably happen next is that Mthethwa, who has given CSA until October 27 to furnish him with reasons why he should not get involved in cricket, will order the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC) to establish an interim committee to run the game until CSA’s annual meeting on December 5.

A brave new world awaits CSA, which has already been transformed from what it was on September 18, when Williams was asked at a press conference why he had not resigned. “I believe I’m still committed‚ I’m passionate‚ and can still contribute and serve the game. I choose not to go. We as a board and as collective leadership have dealt with matters head-on and I do believe we’re moving forward as a collective. I’ll continue to serve until such time as the members council decides otherwise. I took a decision that I either move on or I continue to serve. I decided on the latter to serve the game that I’m passionate about. I’ve been a servant of the game at various levels. If there was anything in which I believe I acted irresponsibly or not in the interests of the game as a director‚ I would have moved on.”

It appears Williams felt that way going into Thursday’s meeting of the members council, where the entire board was asked to resign and reportedly refused. What a difference three days makes.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

In allowing CSA an easy escape, parliament failed cricket

“I don’t even know this person who you are talking about. Who’s that person?” – committee chair Beauty Dlulane fails to recognise the name of Naasei Appiah, who is mentioned 10 times in a summary of the Fundudzi report.

TELFORD VICE | Cape Town

CSA will hold its board’s feet to the fire for losing its way before, during and after the tenure of Thabang Moroe, who was not qualified to be appointed chief executive. But the findings of the forensic investigation that was used to sack Moroe and might yet cost others their positions will not be made public.

Also, the conflict of interest inherent in CSA’s upper structures must be undone, the game will be in trouble if international teams do not resume touring soon, and government should interfere in cricket if needs be.

That was the extent of the value of the almost four hours CSA spent discussing the Fundudzi forensic report with a parliamentary committee on Tuesday. For the rest, CSA were in the unusual position of appearing to be the more competent people in the room. Then again, the other people in the virtual room for the online meeting were shockingly out-of-touch with the state of the game — and thus woefully unsuited to their roles.

Although the oversight committee, comprised of MPs from a range of parties, was furnished with the 468-page report on Friday, it was apparent that most members hadn’t bothered to give the document more than a cursory glance.

On being informed that Naasei Appiah had joined the meeting despite having been being fired as CSA’s chief operating officer — a decision he says he will fight — Beauty Dlulane, the committee chair, said: “I don’t even know this person who you are talking about. Who’s that person?” Appiah is mentioned 10 times in the summary of the forensic report released on October 5, and presumably more often in the full version. If Dlulane had been familiar with either document she would have known who he is.

Consequently, CSA’s representatives were able to deal easily with half-volleys instead of snorters and yorkers, correcting umpteen errors of fact committed by ignorant committee members as they went. The meeting was an exercise in worthlessness mitigated only by the contributions of Marius Schoeman, the CSA independent director who chairs its audit and risk committee.

“There is clarity that what happened happened under the watch of the board, and accountability rests with the board,” Schoeman said. “The board appoints the executive and has an oversight function. The current board has an accountability and a responsibility to address the findings [of the report]. No finding can be left and not be actioned on, and that’s the responsibility of the current board.” And the buck doesn’t stop with board members: “Every [CSA] employee who is implicated in the report will be addressed within the disciplinary code.”

When will the rest of us get a look at those 468 pages? “The report will remain confidential,” Schoeman said. “The feedback to stakeholders will be the actions that have been taken. We will not reveal details within the document. We will get a third-party assurance provider that will confirm that specific matters have been addressed.”

Much of the report deals with the failings of Moroe, who was dismissed in August. Should he have landed the post at all, considering he came to it from a midlevel position with a cellphone service provider? “As far as the question of the appointment of Mr Moroe, that he didn’t meet the minimum requirements, yes — you are correct,” Schoeman told a curious committee member. “It’s a finding that I find astonishing, in that one has minimum requirements. The report also indicates that the advertisement was different from the job description. In my experience those are things that should not happen.”

Much that shouldn’t happen does happen at CSA, not least because its highest authority, the members council where each of cricket’s 14 provinces is represented, also takes seven places on the 12-member board. That could change at the annual meeting, which is scheduled for December 5. “We realise that there’s much work to be done insofar as regaining the trust of our stakeholders, including the public,” Schoeman said. “One of the key factors, and it comes out of the report, is the inherent conflict of interest that exists because members of the members council are also board members. In terms of the members council charter and MOI [memorandum of incorporation] they have to act in the best interests of the affiliate members that has nominated them, but as a director they have to act in the best interests of CSA. I do not want to be in their shoes, because it’s difficult to wear those two hats. The priority is on doing what’s best for CSA, because the role of directors is governed by the Companies Act and overrides charters. Poor oversight, poor governance — it’s evident from the report; no doubt.”

Schoeman was supported by Dheven Dharmalingam, another CSA indepedent director, who said: “We need to make sure that, at the annual meeting, this board ends up with a majority of independent directors.”

Dharmalingam, CSA’s finance committee chair, made the case for government to allow South Africa to host international teams again in the wake of the coronavirus lockdown: “If we don’t start playing cricket, we don’t earn content revenue [from broadcast rights] and we don’t earn our share of the profit from the ICC, [and] this organisation will be in trouble.”

Teams from countries that have high virus infection rates need government permission to visit South Africa. England, who CSA hope will arrive near the end of the year to play six white-ball matches and put up to USD4.2-million into the coffers, is such a country. Will they be allowed to come?

Not by the tone of committee member Nocks Seabi’s view: “CSA is a public entity. It is running cricket as a sport on behalf of South Africans. If there is a need for government to intervene in the interests of South Africans, we do so.”

Seabi is an MP for the ruling African National Congress, which also counts sports minister Nathi Mthethwa among its members. In a letter, seen by Cricbuzz, to CSA’s acting president, Beresford Williams — who was forced to recuse himself from Tuesday’s meeting because he is implicated in the report — Mthethwa rasps that Williams is “kindly reminded that as a sovereign country in which I am the minister responsible for sport … there is a raft of laws at my disposal that empower me to deal effectively with recalcitrant behaviour within my portfolio”.

That authority includes the withdrawal of national colours, which would prevent South Africa’s teams from representing the country. As bad as things are, they could get worse.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

Even pompous, parasitic, pathetic parliament is pissed off with CSA

South Africans who sat through this shambles of a parliamentary meeting were reminded, not for the first time, why they want their taxes back. And a new set of cricket suits while we’re at it.

TELFORD VICE | Cape Town

WHEN the sports portfolio committee of South Africa’s deeply dysfunctional parliament came face to face, virtually, with CSA’s heavyweights on Tuesday, they found themselves looking in the mirror. They didn’t like what they saw, and they said so.

For much of more than two hours, CSA was repeatedly branded as arrogant, disrespectful and undermining for failing to provide the committee with the full report on a forensic investigation into the ills afflicting a game that was in danger of destroying itself even before the pandemic arrived to hurry that process along.

By the end of the exercise, CSA had committed to complying with the committee’s demand to be furnished with the full report by Friday. “It’s a tipping point and a step in the right direction,” Marius Schoeman, the independent member of CSA’s board who chairs the finance committee and easily the most believable of all who attended Tuesday’s meeting, said of the parliamentary committee’s resolution. “The protocol to follow is that the members council will just be consulted and confirm that the board may release this report. It will be released in hard copy by Fundudzi [the firm that conducted the investigation] by Friday, close of business, 16 hours 30. If this is not done by 16:30 on Friday then I will resign.”

CSA received the document on July 31, but has resisted releasing it — including to the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC), who asked for it — citing legal and governance implications. Lawyers acting for CSA prepared a summary, which was made public on Monday. Angered by that, and by CSA’s admission that minister of sport Nathi Mthethwa had been given a copy of the report, the committee demanded the document.

That an institution as low in the public’s esteem as parliament, for many the epicentre of corruption in the country, should feel emboldened to lecture others on the rights and wrongs of anything will be seen as an indication of just how far cricket has fallen. Or taken as an instance of politicians using the opportunity to take the heat off themselves by attacking easy targets. Either way, South Africans who sat through this shambles were reminded, not for the first time, why they want their taxes back. And a new set of cricket suits while we’re at it.

The unfunny comedy started with committee chair Beauty Dlulane issuing a bumptious soliloquy about CSA’s failure to deliver on a promise made to the same committee in June that it would make the report available once it was complete. “I respected cricket’s leadership when they said they were waiting and processing,” Dlulane began. “But the respect I have given you I didn’t see in return.

“You think that this report does not belong to the committee. Why should we wait, five months down the line? And instead of this committee being given the full report [a summary] goes to the public. I’m very disappointed with your leadership for disrespecting even the chairperson of this committee, who gave you chances when the members [of the committee] said I shouldn’t.

“You didn’t have the courtesy of thinking, five months down the line, that there is a committee of parliament that you were supposed to prioritise. I don’t take kindly to what you have done to me. I’m so disappointed in your leadership that, five months down the line, you have done this to us.”

That set the tone for too many versions of Dlulane’s view, interspersed with infantile squabbling and occasional nuggets of relevance. Like the director general of sport, Vusumusi Mkhize, saying, “I can confirm that the report was delivered directly to the minister personally to minimise risk of the information leaking.” And another independent member of CSA’s board, Dheven Dharmalingam, reminding all present that the findings of an investigation, even if they had led to Thabang Moroe being fired as CSA chief executive, were minor compared to what loomed in the real world: “We need to get our players back to playing. If we don’t, when do we earn our next rand? What the business of CSA is all about is selling content. If our players are not playing we’re not going to survive as an organisation anyway. And hundreds of people in South Africa who are reliant for their livelihood on CSA will be impacted.”

South Africa’s fixture lists, domestic and international, are blank — not only as a result of CSA’s ineptitude but also because the borders remain closed to travelling teams. There are serious doubts about CSA’s ability to run the game, but there is no doubt that Covid-19, and the regulations to combat the spread of the virus, could kill it.

That didn’t stop Eugenia Kula-Ameyaw, another of CSA’s independent directors, from wandering down a tangent and trying to argue that SASCOC, rather than parliament, should be furnished with the report: bizarre considering CSA was fighting desperately against doing exactly that just days ago. Kula-Ameyaw’s proposal was summarily shot down, prompting Dlulane to pronounce: “The more time we give you to talk as individuals, I’m suspecting you don’t understand what you want to do.”

At least she got that right.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

Board member’s blunder drags CSA down still more

“Just check before you make an irrational decision.” – CSA’s Eugenia Kula-Ameyaw fails to follow her own advice in disparaging a sponsor.

TELFORD VICE | Cape Town

CSA stretched the boundaries of how bad things could get for the game in the country still further on Wednesday when it was forced to apologise to a departing sponsor in the wake of a damaging late-night tweet by a board member — who now faces disciplinary action.

Momentum, a financial services group, said on Tuesday it would not renew most of its wide-ranging sponsorship agreement with CSA when the current contract expires at the end of next April. All that will be left of a deal worth the equivalent of USD1.2-million a year to CSA, which currently encompasses men’s ODI and franchise one-day cricket as well as support for the game at age-group and developmental level, will be funding for South Africa’s women’s team until 2023.

“Momentum has expressed that they are not satisfied with the current state of affairs at CSA regarding governance and other reputational issues,” the company said in a release.

“There are matters that are concerning at CSA and as a partner to CSA we have to keep them accountable,” Carel Bosman, the company’s head of sponsorship, said in a television interview.

At 11.35pm (South Africa time) on Tuesday, Eugenia Kula-Ameyaw, one of CSA’s independent directors, tweeted: “Momentum forgets that we invest hundreds of millions in Momentum in our SOE [state-owned enterprises] and pension funds. I remember asking for the BBBEE [broad-based black economic empowerment, and affirmative action policy] certificate in my other board. Just check before you make an irrational decision.”

She was challenged on Wednesday morning by another poster, Dean Koen, who wrote: “That exact response is why all sponsorship should be withdrawn. The game of cricket is not about you or the board but rather all players and more importantly the development of the game.”

Kula-Ameyaw replied with: “I agree fully with you on that core group which is players. Without players there is no cricket. You missing the point that Momentum gets business from the players, fans, citizens. I was happy that they fund the women’s team though it’s not transformation but marketing.”

She later deleted her first post, but it has been widely circulated. Consequently, CSA had to issue a statement in a grovelling attempt to clean up the mess. Cricbuzz understands that happened only after and as a result of Momentum making known to CSA their unhappiness about Kula-Ameyaw’s tweets.

“CSA sincerely apologises to Momentum for the unfortunate and unwarranted tweets made by one of our board members in her personal capacity,” the release quoted acting president Beresford Williams as saying. “CSA wishes to reiterate that Dr Eugenia Kula-Ameyaw did not act in her professional position as a non-executive board member of CSA.

“While we respect the personal views of all South Africans, CSA wishes to distance itself from the articulations made by Dr Kula-Ameyaw on Twitter. We further wish to reiterate that CSA does not ascribe to the views expressed regarding Momentum and we sincerely value the benefits Momentum and all our sponsors bring in making cricket accessible and inclusive for all South Africans.”

The release said CSA is “taking this matter very seriously” and that “in light of the reputational damage potentially caused” the members council — its highest authority — had reported the issue to the social and ethics committee. CSA promised that “the necessary corrective action will be taken”.

Among the “specific duties” of the social and ethics committee, CSA’s website says, is that it “must promote and monitor ethical behaviour of the members council, the board of directors, employees, sponsors, broadcasters and commercial partners, in particular, paying attention to the following aspects: conflicts of interest; confidential information; compliance with relevant laws; workplace conduct; stakeholder relationships; public communication; employee wellness; business courtesies and gifts; non-compliance with prescripts; internal and external fraud; and collusion”.

Kula-Ameyaw’s blunder surely means she has fallen foul of that rule. Whether she has done so seriously enough to be found guilty of delinquency, and consequently removed from the board, is unclear. But at the least she should expect a lecture on her online conduct.

“As part of its ongoing efforts to improve the reputation of CSA, the organisation’s management will be re-educating all its internal stakeholders on better understanding its social media policy and to ensure employees across all levels understand the value afforded by sponsors and supporters,” the release said. CSA had apologised to Momentum separately, and “remains forever grateful for Momentum’s sponsorship and the fruitful relationship both organisations have enjoyed for almost 10 years”.

It’s not the first time Kula-Ameyaw has embarrassed the game. During an online CSA press conference on August 28 she told reporters: “What I don’t like about cricket is they don’t predict how long they will play. Football is 45, 45 [minutes]; then you are done. I only watch the highlights of cricket, not the whole game. I don’t have time for that.”

CSA announced Kula-Ameyaw’s appointment on May 19, along with that of Dheven Dharmalingam — who was installed as chair of the social and ethics committee after the previous incumbent, Steve Cornelius, last month became the sixth board member to resign since December. Awkwardly, Kula-Ameyaw is also on the committee.

A perspective more in touch with the realities of the game’s dire situation — pre, during and post the pandemic — came from the South African Cricketers’ Association (SACA), which issued a release later on Wednesday that quoted president Omphile Ramela as saying: “The current economic environment is heavily constrained due to the Covid-19 impact and consequently many businesses are reviewing their partnerships. The sporting community is not immune to the impact of the current economic hardship.

“Domestic cricket, in particular, … had already seen a decline in sponsorship funding and it is therefore imperative for cricket to use this crisis to re-invent the sponsorship business model of the game in a way that gives confidence to the sponsors and creates space for value to be derived from cricket.”

The release said: “The decision of Momentum to exit the game at the end of their current ODI sponsorship agreement is regrettable, but their concerns regarding the governance of cricket are shared by SACA.”

Andrew Breetzke, SACA’s chief executive, was quoted as saying: “I spoke to [Bosman] today, and thanked him on behalf of our members. Momentum has been committed to our game since 2012, and in addition to sponsoring ODI cricket in South Africa, they pioneered the Pink Day ODI [to raise awareness of and funds for the fight against breast cancer] together with CSA … which has become a leading event on South Africa’s sporting calendar.”

Momentum’s healthcare division, the release said, “remains an important sponsor of SACA members, and their role in providing players with medical aid cover is critical to the well-being of professional cricketers in South Africa”.

Happily, some people in the game in this country still have a grip on what really matters. Unhappily, they are not in positions powerful enough to stop cricket’s slide into crisis.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

Virus could save cricket from CSA

“Let’s look each other in the eye before we make a decision on this.” – Nic Kock convinces CSA’s members council to defer talk of constitutional change.

TELFORD VICE | Cape Town

THE coronavirus pandemic isn’t doing the world much good, but it may earn the credit for saving cricket in South Africa from the worst excesses of some of the most incorrigibly poor administrators anywhere in the game. Happily, not all of the suits have abdicated their responsibilities.

So when Cricket South Africa’s (CSA) members council — made up of the presidents of the 14 provincial affiliates — met via teleconference on Saturday there was enough opposition to stave off a proposal to make alarming changes to the memorandum of incorporation, CSA’s founding document.

The plan, which Cricbuzz has seen, called for increasing the minimum required majority to remove the president and vice-president from the current 66% to 80%, and to align voting with South Africa’s geopolitical provincial boundaries.

That would have reduced the number of members council votes from 14 to nine — the number of provinces, in legislative terms, in the country — which would have meant the support of all but one province would have been needed to get rid of the leadership.

Sources have told Cricbuzz that opposition to the proposal was led by Nic Kock, the president of the Western Province Cricket Association, who is said to have successfully argued for the matter to be deferred until after the pandemic has passed. Kock, who is not our source, apparently told his colleagues down the telephone line: “Let’s look each other in the eye before we make a decision on this.” It was decided to move the discussion to a workshop, which has not been scheduled. But that means there was at least some support for the idea, which flies in the face of sound governance.

Chris Nenzani has been CSA president since February 2013. His vice-president, Beresford Williams, has been in office only since last February but has sat on the board for as long as Nenzani. They have presided over financial losses that have been projected to reach USD54.9-million by the end of the 2022 rights cycle, while CSA’s governance has been questionable enough for long-term sponsors to desert them. Consequently, large sections of the cricketminded public consider the game to have been dragged into deep disrepute.

In other cricket cultures the captains of this stricken ship Nenzani would long since have been discharged dishonourably. But South Africans will have to wait until CSA’s annual meeting, scheduled for September 5, to find out if enough suits think they should be relieved of their posts. Nenzani’s time is up in terms of CSA’s constitution, but he has previously engineered a way to cling to power — last September, when he was gifted another year despite having served both his allotted three-year terms. Another attempt to prop him up, perhaps arguing that the uncertainty caused by Covid-19 should put major change on hold, cannot be discounted.

Saturday’s meeting also featured the appointment of three independent directors to replace those who resigned in December after losing faith in the way CSA was being run. A release on Tuesday heralded the arrival of Vuyokazi Memani-Sedile, Dheven Dharmalingam and Eugenia Kula-Ameyaw, and detailed their lengthy and allegedly impressive records in business.

There was no mention of Kula-Ameyaw being accused of misusing taxpayers’ money on a trip to Ghana in March 2018 that was worth R90,000, or USD7,600 at the prevailing exchange rate. She attended a transformation workshop as an Estate Agency Affairs Board official despite the cash-strapped organisation having declared a moratorium on international travel. The discovery of her jaunt prompted disciplinary proceedings against her superior, which cost the equivalent of USD24,000.

Not that stalwart CSA watchers would have expected those details to be in Monday’s release. Nor would they have wondered whether Kula-Ameyaw’s messy past might have precluded her from being selected from among at least 87 candidates for the three positions. If you’ve kept an eye on CSA over the years you’ve seen this kind of thing before. And doubtless will again. It never really goes away, just like a virus.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.