“CSA suspends Boucher and Smith” – the damagingly erroneous headline on CSA’s release was a glimpse of the divisions in the game.
Telford Vice | Paarl
CSA have no belief in Mark Boucher and are trying to fire him on charges of racism. It’s there in black and white, twice, in the charge sheet that will be used in his disciplinary hearing that is set to start on Wednesday.
Here’s page two of seven: “[CSA] will contend that the nature of your misconduct is gross and of such a serious nature to warrant termination of your employment. And page six: “Your conduct has resulted in an irretrievable breakdown in the trust relationship between you and CSA. In the circumstances, the sanction of dismissal will be sought before the chairperson of the disciplinary enquiry.”
This would be the same Mark Boucher who, last Friday, guided South Africa to a famous Test series victory over India with a team in which black and brown players are flourishing. And the same Mark Boucher who has recently been praised for his work as a coach by Lungi Ngidi, Rassie van der Dussen and Farhaan Behardien. Not for the first time, the suits and the players are not nearly on the same page.
But this is also the same Mark Boucher who was among the South Africa players who, the Social Justice and Nation-Building (SJN) project heard, called Paul Adams “brown shit” in a dressing room song during their mutual playing days. Boucher admitted as much and apologised, but only in writing. Had he taken the chance he had to appear at the SJN in person, or at least online, he would have been able to present himself as a contrite, fallible human being who was the product of a shockingly damaged society. Instead, he sent a cold, dry lawyer’s letter riddled with weasel words. It has now been used against him.
The SJN report failed utterly to provide a roadmap for progress. Instead it passed the buck and recommended that Boucher and Graeme Smith, CSA’s director of cricket, be investigated. Even if the SJN hadn’t made that limp suggestion — wasn’t that SJN itself’s role in all this? — CSA did not have the option of ignoring what had been uncovered at the hearings. To do nothing would have been to condone by silence serious allegations and admissions. There is never a convenient time to deal with racism, but dealt with it must be. That is more true in South Africa than in any other country.
Even so, some of the SJN’s findings on Smith, in particular, were blighted by damaging leaps of assumption. For instance, Smith’s refusal, before his appointment in December 2019, to report to former CSA chief executive Thabang Moroe, along with his stated lack of trust in the previous board, were held up as “[evincing] his racial bias against black leadership at CSA”.
Moroe was a wrecking ball of an administrator, and consequently fired. The board resigned in disgrace after years of governance catastrophes. That Smith insisted on keeping his distance from these malignant entities is commendable. For the SJN not to recognise that raises serious questions about its own integrity and its understanding of its purpose. Besides, Smith has been working with acting chief executive Pholetsi Moseki — who is black — since December 2020, and with a majority black and brown board for his entire tenure.
But that wasn’t the only charge made about Smith and, as per the SJN’s recommendation, action against him is expected to be unveiled in the coming days. As he is an independent contractor, unlike full-time employee Boucher, that could mean arbitration rather than the bigger stick being wielded at his former teammate.
So how was it that the release that heralded Boucher’s disciplinary hearing was originally headlined: “CSA suspends Boucher and Smith”? That statement was soon withdrawn, only to reappear without change except for the headline — “CSA appoints highly respected advocate Terry Motau (SC) chairperson of disciplinary hearing into allegations into Mark Boucher”.
Asked why “suspends” and “Smith” appeared on top of a statement that mentioned neither, Thamie Mthembu, CSA’s head of communications, told Cricbuzz that “this is an unforgivable error”, that “we have investigated and it is clear to us that one of the writers used a previous template that was never intended for release and then saved the new document as such”, and that “the document should have been saved as per the headline on the document”.
That a “previous template” in CSA’s system was titled “CSA suspends Boucher and Smith” — that it even existed — should ring loud alarms. It is an inkling into the division that infects every facet of the game. It is common knowledge that factions within CSA have been dead set against the appointment of Smith, who as per his mandate hired Boucher, since he started work: some 17 months before the SJN hearings started.
Had the first headline never appeared, this story wouldn’t have been anything like this long. That it needs all this explaining and context means cricket may not have rid itself of its delinquent denizens. Because unwarranted, damaging headlines like “CSA suspends Boucher and Smith” cannot be honest mistakes. They have to be unleashed by design — to misinform, to mislead, to divide and, perchance, to rule again in Machiavellian style.
Indeed, even though the board has been restructured to feature a majority of independent directors, some of the dinosaurs of cricket’s decades of rampant cronyism have survived. A minority of board members, in the words of one source, “hate [Boucher] with a passion” — hence, perhaps, the escalation of what was originally billed as an investigation into a potentially career-ending disciplinary hearing. Another minority are “vocally in his favour”. Still another, more objective, minority want the process to run its course fully and fairly.
So, not every board member wants Boucher sacked. But, as a collective, that’s what the board have signed off on. And, despite the ominous wording of the charge sheet, Motau could decide Boucher is guilty and not sack him. He could, for instance, slap him with a letter of warning and order him to undergo anti-racism training.
Boucher was furnished, privately, with the charge sheet on Monday. The news that he would be on the carpet was broken on Thursday, prompting CSA to release their clanger of a headline. It wasn’t long before the charge sheet itself was doing the rounds.
In it, Boucher is accused of “historically repeatedly used racist and/or offensive and/or inappropriate nicknames regarding a Proteas team-mate; and/or having had your racist and/or offensive and/or inappropriate utterances drawn to your attention, you failed to adequately and/or sufficiently and/or appropriately apologise for these utterances and/or acknowledge the racist nature of these utterances and/or hurt that they caused.”
Curiously, “When dealing with the Black Lives Matter issue and the question of ‘taking the knee’, you allegedly dealt with the white players’ concerns and requested that the team manager (who is black) deal with the black players’ concerns.” Consequently, “This allegedly created or exacerbated division and alienated players and the team.” It also meant Boucher drew for himself the short straw of talking to players who had refused to kneel: all the members of the squad who didn’t were white. He himself had been taking a knee since before the board ordered all to do so.
Boucher also “allegedly did not formalise any documented ‘roles and responsibilities’ or meaningful KPIs [key performance indicators] for the assistant coach, Enoch Nkwe”, who is black — and resigned unhappily in August. Boucher “allegedly did not provide any specific or sufficiently specific and defined role for Mr Nkwe and no ‘personal development plans’ were documented or implemented for Mr Nkwe” and “you allegedly treated Mr Nkwe in a manner unbecoming of a leader in your position”. This situation must be remedied. Nkwe is too intelligent and too valuable a coach and figure of excellence to be lost to cricket.
Wednesday will be the first step in what could be a protracted business of he said, he said. Boucher will take the team to New Zealand early next month with this saga hanging over his head, where it promises to be for months to come.
He could well win the battle, and he won’t be declared its biggest loser. That sorry status is reserved for those South Africans who thought they knew black from white, and how to tell the difference.
First published by Cricbuzz.
Bulletproof Truth 