MEDIA NOTE ON SABC BOARD CHAIR AND CEO STATEMENTS REGARDING MY GRIEVANCE

I initially received via media sources the well-publicised responses to my grievance by Mr

Madoda Mxakwe and Mr Bongumusa Makhathini. My grievance letter was submitted to the
SABC Board’s Governance and Nominations Committee on 29 November 2021. The
statements, purporting to be evidence refuting my grievance, are filled with deliberate
misrepresentation. The purpose of this communication is to address certain factual
inaccuracies recorded in Mr Mxakwe’s and Mr Makhathini’s responses to my grievance.

A close reading of the two statements reveals that the responses by the two SABC directors
were coordinated, to discredit me as untrustworthy.

Mr Mxakwe uses messages that were never sent to him but to Mr Makhathini, omitting and
editing significant parts of these messages to conceal the original source and context. Mr
Mxakwe cut out parts of my messages to him and removed information that did not suit his
purpose and used other parts without context or out of context.

DELIBERATE OMISSIONS ON EDITORIAL INTEFERENCE

I have never requested Mr Mxakwe, formally or informally, to assist with an interview with
Mr Ramaphosa as either State President or ANC President. All I did was to report to him as
my line manager that whenever we tried to secure an interview with him, it got cancelled.
Even when it was raised at the Board’s News and Editorial Committee, it was purely feedback
on our unsuccessful attempts to secure an interview with the State President. At the recent
Board Strategy session on 02 December 2021, a direct question on the President’s
unavailability was asked by board member, Professor Saths Cooper. I explained how the most
recent attempt had also been cancelled. Therefore, Mr Mxakwe knows that the irregular
interview he voluntarily coordinated had nothing to do with the State President or anything
related to SABC News’ difficulty in securing it. Even if he wanted to, SABC News and Editorial
Policy prohibits him from doing so and I would not have allowed it.

To portray me as lying about his interference in editorial matters, Mr Mxakwe deliberately

omitted information regarding how he got radio management involved into planning to host
the unscheduled ANC President’s interview, on 24 October 2021 in the lead up to local
government elections. In his statement Mr Mxakwe claims to have walked away from the
interview when I objected. However, despite my refusal to authorise the interview and
arguing that it was not sanctioned by editors, Mr Mxakwe continued in his unsolicited efforts
to facilitate the hosting of the unscheduled interview knowing that this was in breach of
editorial policies and newsroom processes. I even sent him a message at 12h45 on the day
confirming that the Regional Editor, Politics Editor and Head of Input responsible for regions,
knew nothing about it. As standard practice, radio management requested the regional editor
to assist with production staff as this fell outside the competency of their regular
programming. Upon receiving the request, the editor sent me a message at 13h26 on 24
October 2021 saying he was proceeding to arrange current affairs journalists who were not
on duty as they had no programme set for that time of the day, to be on standby to deliver

1
the interview. I told him to stop as we had spoken earlier indicating to him that the interview
fell outside standard newsroom processes. Radio management would not have known
anything about the interview as communication was between Mr Mxakwe and Mr Pule Mabe.
This was done behind my back and despite my objection on editorial policy grounds.

Also, what he does not say in his statement is that he initially asked me to deploy a crew to
the private station where a scheduled interview with Mr Ramaphosa was to take place. He
also does not reflect that I told him we had a crew that was covering the ANC President’s
campaign, and that any questions we wanted to ask would be a responsibility of the
journalists we had deployed. However, in his statement he claims to be the person who
objected to SABC taking the interview from the private station. I am the one who objected to
that citing that the SABC as national broadcaster with full editorial capacity, could not be
taking an interview from a regional private station. Mr Mxakwe made no less than three calls
to me on that day in his pursuit to get the irregular interview done.

Likewise, in his account of his role in trying to arrange an interview with the ANC President,
Mr Makhathini does not mention that he asked if I had arranged a crew to conduct the
interview as briefed by Mr Mxakwe. When I said no, he wanted to know why, and I gave him
the same explanation I had given the CEO. When he told me that the ANC President was in
the final leg of the campaign and would be making his way to the SABC, I asked him what he
was coming to do as SABC News had no scheduled interview with him. He asked if the ANC
President would have to leave the SABC without doing the interview. I emphatically said from
a News point of view, yes, as the interview was not sanctioned by editors. I told him that
making decisions outside the newsroom would compromise editors and editorial
transparency. I advised him that station programming could go ahead and conduct the
interview if that is what he wanted, but SABC News was not getting involved.

At that point I had already been made aware of Mr Mxakwe’s coordination with radio
management to have the interview done. I made Mr Makhathini aware of the pending
interview with the ANC President to be conducted by the Politics Editor, Mr Mzwandile
Mbeje, as with other leaders of political parties represented in parliament, of which Mr Mabe
was aware. Lastly, he asked how he should explain to the ANC President why the interview
could not be done. I said the decision is based on SABC Editorial Policies that dictate how
editorial decision-making works in the newsroom. Mr Makhathini responded that in the years
we had worked together we had a good relationship and he thought I would take that into
consideration. I agreed on the good relationship, but this was not a licence for him to
persuade me to breach editorial policies. He intentionally misquotes my reference to ICASA
election coverage audits and omits the context in which I made the comment, which was
based on regulations and SABC News’ commitment to equitable coverage and fair treatment
of other political parties and candidates. I was so shocked after Mr Makhathini’s call that I
immediately called the politics editor and told him what I had just experienced.

MISREPRESENTATION OF FACT ON EDITORIAL INTEFERENCE

Furthermore, in his account of his role in the AmaZulu Royal family’s succession battle. Mr
Makathini leaves out pertinent information that relates to his actions. Mr Makhathini

2
misrepresented his real intention behind sharing the information on the AmaZulu royal family
and withheld messages that exposed what he wanted to achieve. He did not disclose the full
content of the call he made before sharing the material.

Mr Makhathini’s premise was that media coverage of the royal family’s succession battle was
one sided and he mentioned one media house as an example. He said the story of what he
called “the other side” of the family was not being told. What followed was an explanation of
how King Misuzulu kaZwelithini was not fit to lead AmaZulu. He said he himself was among
those not pleased.

Mr Makhathini said in his view the King had a problem and was unfit to lead Isizwe samaZulu.
On 07 June 2021 at 21h00 he shared a 1-hour-54-minute audio clip recorded from a royal
family meeting discussing the King’s ‘problem’, that Mr Makhathini believed made him
ineligible. At 21h41 he sent a message saying the clip proved this, and that “Undunankulu
uButhelezi is trying to push one of the late King’s wifes (sic) out of the royal palaces to hide
the new King”. In the next message at 21h43 he explained the origin of the clip and said
“uThokozani can give it a voice”, meaning we could talk to Prince Thokozani about it. At 21h46
he shared Prince Thokozani’s number. Out of respect for King Misuzulu kaZwelithini, I will not
divulge the exact nature of the problem as it is sensitive, and journalistically has neither
counter evidence, nor proof.

However, I have in my possession the clip and Mr Makhathini’s message that he chose to not
share in his statement. If Mr Makhathini claims to be an innocent source, why does he not
disclose the full content of his initial call to me? Why does he neither mention the messages
he sent after that call and the audio clip nor share them? Why did he not take the information
to the media he said carried one side of the story? Mr Makhathini was not a source as he
claims, but an active player in the story, and he sought to use my relationship with him to get
SABC News to drive his efforts to influence the royal family’s succession battles.

Moreover, the reading of the will he claims to have sought to get the newsroom to share with
the public, was carried live by SABC News when it happened, way before he sent the copy to
me. In fact, Mr Makhathini shared not just the will handed to me by a security guard in a white
envelope, but court documents that were also in the public domain. In the light of the above,
it is evident that Mr Makhathini sought to misrepresent the material facts and discredit me.

Mr Makhathini selectively uses messages that rationalise his interference and says nothing
about the rest and those he deliberately omitted. I did nothing with that information because
SABC News journalists in Durban had done well in covering the story and were still following
it. I had confidence that they could do their work without interference.

Mr Makhathini’s involvement in coordinating the impromptu interview with Mr Ramaphosa

made me uncomfortable, even though I had a good relationship with him previously. I felt, by
his insistence, that he was abusing this relationship. Neither was he alone among board
members. For instance, after a board strategy session, board member, Prof Saths Cooper tried
to use the apparent unavailability of the President to influence coverage. He sent me a
message on 02 December 2021 at 16h56 saying, “Change focus, go for wife on a very different
kind of feature; use me as ref, saying I’ve been pushing you…she knows me from her 1st yr

3
medical sch days. As women are viewers on 1 &2, it’ll be a hit – her life etc”. He also sent me
Dr Tshepo Motsepe’s number. My response was “Great. Thanks” and I did nothing with it.
This is the manner in which I have always dealt with all board members who share information
with the intention of influencing coverage. I receive, acknowledge, sometimes engage, and
move on. I am not sure how the President’s unavailability evolved into an interview with Dr
Motsepe. But this is what I had to deal with. I wish to point out that Prof Cooper sits in the
Special Committee that has been set up to adjudicate my grievance.

INTENTIONAL MISCHARACTERISATION OF AN IRREGULAR INTERVIEW

Both Mr Mxakwe and Mr Makhathini deliberately misstated the status of the unscheduled
interview with Mr Ramaphosa as one in his capacity as the head of state. However, they knew
it was proposed by the ANC’s Mr Pule Mabe in Mr Ramaphosa’s capacity as ANC President.
Their insistence on the interview and the intentional mischaracterisation of it, was an attempt
to persuade me to agree, by misusing the fact that SABC News had been struggling to secure
a one-on-one interview with the President. I explained that Mr Ramaphosa was campaigning
for the ANC, and this was an unplanned party-political interview. They know there are
different communication protocols in coordinating each type of interview. Mr Mabe would
not have been involved in organising an interview with the head of state. It is the presidency
that deals with such interviews, and I had been communicating directly with Mr Tyrone Seale
in that regard.

Their frustration with my decision comes out clearly in Mr Makhathini’s statement where he
says he was “perplexed by my decision” to refuse the interview and that Mr Mxakwe was
“confused as to why Magopeni was not prepared to take up the opportunity”. In his
statement Mr Mxakwe says when Mr Mabe called him saying Mr Ramaphosa was on his way
to the Polokwane SABC office, he called Mr Makhathini and informed him and that owing to
the relationship he had with me he felt the Board Chair would be able to engage me. In doing
so, Mr Mxakwe was asking Mr Makhathini to put further pressure on me to approve the
irregular interview which he mispresented as one with the head of state.

If my refusal was based on editorial prescripts, what made Mr Mxakwe think that company
policies were subservient to interpersonal relationships? Why did he involve the Board Chair
on a matter that was both operational and editorial? They both pressured and bullied me
without success into approving the unplanned interview and bypass stipulated editorial
processes. The same bullying comes through in their responses to my grievance. There was
no long-standing interview request for the ANC President as we had been communicating
with Mr Mabe and waiting for a confirmation. In fact, the initial confirmation of the ANC
President’s interview by Mr Mabe with me was for 14 October 2021 but got cancelled.
Therefore, securing that interview did not require anyone’s intervention, particularly
someone outside the newsroom. Guided by ICASA Regulations and Editorial Policies, SABC
News followed a systematic approach in covering political parties, groupings, and
independent candidates to ensure equitable coverage, and this impromptu interview
coordinated by the two company directors fell outside that framework.

4
At different points in his statement, Mr Mxakwe dances between the State President and ANC
Presidency, depending on the point he wants to advance. At one point he refers to a meeting
with various ANC representatives on 07 October 2021 to make the unscheduled interview he
coordinated with Mr Mabe sound like a consequence of that meeting. In that meeting, I
explained how SABC News was managing its elections coverage and different responsibilities
were carried by editors. Mr Mabe knew better than to pursue an irregular interview with me
and focused on calling Mxakwe to secure it.

In conclusion, clause 5.20.7 of the News and Editorial Policy precludes Mr Makhathini, Mr
Mxakwe and anyone outside the newsroom from involvement in editorial decision making.

“No employees other than editorial staff may engage in any editorial
decision making. As is the case outside election periods, editorial decision
making is a legally-protected exclusive domain of designated editorial
staff”.

There are no exceptions to this clause. Mr Mxakwe and Mr Makhathini knowingly interfered
in editorial matters. Had I not stood my ground, an irregular interview with the President,
unplanned for by news staff, in contravention of SABC Editorial Policies and possibly in
violation of ICASA regulations on electoral coverage, would have gone ahead.

THE TIMING OF THE GRIEVANCE

Mr Mxakwe and Mr Makhathini have taken issue with the timing of the submission of my
grievance following the disciplinary charges lodged against me, but this is a red herring.
I argued that the charges against me were being used to pursue a predetermined outcome.
In my response to the letter of intent to charge me on 18 November 2021, I made it clear that
the charges were “an act of malice, vindictiveness and injustice”. At that point I already knew
what was going on and why the charges were formulated in the irregular manner they were.
I emphasise that the issues that form the basis of my grievance were reflected in my response
to the letter of intent to charge me. Therefore, the timing of the grievance is of no relevance.

The origin of the current impasse is my refusal of the unscheduled interview and a Morning
Live interview I did on 29 October 2021, four days after declining it. The interview is on
YouTube titled LGE 2021|SABC ready to bring full coverage of municipal polls: Phathiswa
Magopeni. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4IpPwRETUU This was my first mention of
internal interference, imposed interviews and politicians that sought to influence our
elections coverage.

The quality of my communication with Mr Mxakwe deteriorated from that point. As the CEO
of the SABC and my line manager, he did not bother to check on the state of the SABC News’
readiness and how we were doing on the eve and day of elections. This is what he would do
previously on big stories, particularly a national project like elections.

5
His first email after my Morning Live interview was on 02 November reminding me about the
report on the airing of the interdicted Special Assignment episode. Despite him stating
explicitly that the report was to be used to respond to the lawyers representing the company
that interdicted Special Assignment, Adv Vanara, who had been dealing with the matter with
News, was not copied. For the first time, Mr Mxakwe had copied the HR Group Executive, Dr
Mojaki Mosia. In his statement Mr Mxakwe says he did so because it was an employee
relations matter that related to the airing of the interdicted episode.

This is his admission that, even before my submission of the incident report, he had made up
his mind about the direction he was taking on the matter. Therefore, no investigation was
required as he had decided I was to be charged, despite my indication to him that there were
different versions submitted by SABC 3 schedulers and News staff regarding the incident, and
that the latter had provided clear instructions for the episode, Still Waiting, that was to air on
26 October 2021. Mr Mxakwe used the incident report I had submitted to him to aid his
response to the lawyers as the basis for the charges against me.

Mr Mxakwe did not follow the SABC’s Disciplinary Code and Delegation of Authority
Framework in terms of due process, because he knew that this would not have given him the
outcome he wanted. In his final message to me on 28 November 2021 before he blocked me
on WhatsApp, he said “I have tolerated your abuse for years. It stops here”. Mr Mxakwe does
not mention this in his statement, nor does he explain it. As I have come to know him,
whenever I stood my ground when we had serious disagreements on organisational matters,
he would accuse me of abuse, and this was meant to control and silence me. But the message
he sent me saying “It stops here”, was the breaking point and a premeditated dismissal by my
line manager. It was an indication that Mr Mxakwe would never work with me again. All that
followed in that grossly flawed disciplinary process was to effect my dismissal at whatever
cost.

I knew that I was pushing dangerous boundaries talking about internal and political
interference publicly in that Morning Live interview, but I could not in conscience keep quiet
about it. The consequence of executive interference in editorial matters at the SABC is well
known and documented. I was not going to permit that and still expect journalists to
safeguard editorial independence and the impartiality of the newsroom. It has come at an
enormous cost, but I could not have done it differently.

FACTS ON THE SECTION 189 AND RETRENCHMENT PROCESS

Mr Mxakwe says, I mismanaged the retrenchment process in terms of section 189 of the
Labour Relations Act, No. 66 of 1995, (“the Section 189 process") and caused delays that cost
the SABC, and that he only found out by accident “in one of my quarterly employee meetings (a
“rediffusion” meeting), that all our colleagues from the News Division had not been engaged on
the new structure and were not even aware of the Target Operating Model”.

Nothing can be further from the truth. Right at the start of the implementation of the Section
189 process and the related retrenchment process, group executives of different divisions
were told to start consultation processes with employees on the organisational structures in
line with the turnaround commitments.

6
Despite Mr Mxakwe’s assertion, he knows that SABC News was the first division to consult
employees in the Corporation on 29 June 2020 at 09h30 and 12h00 and 30 June 2020 at
09h30. This is on record.

Mr Mxakwe’s Rediffusion meeting was several months later. After the first three sessions we
held with employees in the SABC News division, we were told to stop, as consulting with
employees directly meant running a parallel process to the one facilitated by the CCMA. This
was confirmed by the COO, Mr Ian Plaatjes, during a newsroom meeting on 17 November
2020, when a direct question was raised by one of the journalists who were challenging the
retrenchment process and threatening to down tools.

In the Board’s News and Editorial Committee meeting held on 20 January 2021, the minutes
reflect: “The Committee commended the Editor-in-Chief for effectively managing significant
matters which arose in the Newsroom during the period under review”. At this meeting, I
presented the SABC News division’s third quarter report covering the most difficult period of
the retrenchment process. Mr Mxakwe was in that meeting and raised no objections to the
comments about my performance during the Section 189 process. But in his public response
to my grievance, he says I cost the SABC money by ‘mismanaging’ the process. None of this
was ever raised with me by him or anyone else. Why did he not subject me to a disciplinary
process and dismiss me at that time if he held this view? This point was also not raised in the
News and Editorial Committee meeting of the Board to which I presented on this issue.

Mr Mxakwe knows what led to the difficulties that marked the Section 189 process. Firstly,
there was no adequate consultation and sharing of information with employees. It does not
matter how many times the court ruling which pointed to standard consultation requirements
being met gets brought up as justification, the reality on the ground was different.

As a person who made a very brief presentation during the CCMA-facilitated process, before
our presentations I, and others, were told by the COO, Mr Ian Plaatjes, to not go into any
detail and avoid extensive information on the rationale for the redesign of the divisional
structure.

I had less than 30 minutes to deliver a presentation on a process that would alter people’s
lives and careers profoundly and permanently. CCMA records should confirm this. There was
no opportunity for unions and employee representatives who were in that session to ask any
questions about my presentation. They were told that questions would be sent via emails.

This is what happened, resulting in massive discontent and anxiety, because staff had no
opportunity to ask direct questions about their concerns. Anyone who had acted with due
consideration would have known that this was wrong. In addition to what the law provides,
it could not just be the duration of the CCMA-facilitated consultation period that mattered,
but the quality of the engagement and whether it achieved what it sought to do.

An example of how the poorly administered process affected the SABC News, my area of
responsibility, was in August 2020 when I saw the News structure that was submitted to

7
unions during consultation. I pointed out to the COO that it was the original version that did
not reflect any staff input that was made during the three sessions I held in June 2020.

I had updated the structure and sent this to the COO immediately after integrating initial input
from the division. But this latest version was not shared with the unions and employee
representatives. As the presentations were managed by the COO, I was made to present the
same old structure on the day we finally got to talk to unions and employee representatives
during the CCMA-facilitated session.

Consultation with employees was inadequate. Deficiencies in the way the SABC handled the
restructuring process were clear in the chaos that ensued, including the newsroom standoff
with journalists regarding the retrenchment process. The need for proper engagement with
employees became evident when the process was reviewed, and more time given for
consultation, and this was not just the SABC News division.

Furthermore, problems with the management of the process included the contentious skills
audit process. The skills audit was deeply flawed and several editors in the newsroom raised
the matter. The content of the survey had nothing to do with required divisional
competencies. The survey was administered without a final sign-off by the News division. It
contained irrelevant questions on by-laws and matters that related to municipalities that had
no relevance for skills and competencies required in the SABC News division. It was clear that
it came from a completely different project. Together with editors, I raised these concerns
with HR several times, but they were never addressed. Instead, staff were told to write into
the survey form what they believed was relevant to their line of work.

Some editors even called the company that conducted the survey but none of the problems
were addressed. A psychometric assessment tool was administered for executives. When the
skills audit results were presented by the service provider in a meeting set for 04 August 2020,
I was invited to the virtual session which included executive directors and Group HR. There
were concerns about the quality of the results at executive level. This is information that could
be verified with the company that conducted the skills audit. Discussions were held among
those who were in attendance about how the results were to be handled, considering that
Parliament constantly inquired about the skills audit. In the meeting, concerns were
expressed that members of Parliament could use the results against the executive. Eventually,
the skills audit results were controlled to avert any problems that would be triggered if they
were made public. Mr Mxakwe knows this but chooses to use me as a scapegoat for the
consequences of the messy and costly process for which he had responsibility.

Mr Mxakwe treated me with disdain when I expressed concerns about parts of the
retrenchment process, including the 17 November 2020 newsroom standoff when journalists
threatened to down tools at 15h00 challenging the management of the retrenchment
process. I wouldn’t have done it differently knowing what took place behind the scenes.

The jobs evaluation process was equally problematic. Job profiles were compiled hastily
within tight timeframes and submitted for evaluation without proper scrutiny. This has come
back to bite the SABC as it is struggling to attract talent in critical roles due to job content and
salary-related problems. This affects core operational roles.

8
Additionally, the knee-jerk fixes following the job evaluation process, the downgrading of
scale codes, and the retention of old salaries by unaffected staff meant that new appointees
in line management roles earned less that their direct subordinates. There were on-the-spot
adjustments to employment offers which were done randomly without any broader
discussion and consideration for what needed to be done corporation-wide. This is a problem
the SABC remains unable to address and it has got nothing to do with me “mismanaging” the
retrenchment process. Mr Mxakwe presided over this and continues to do so but finds it
convenient to shift the blame.

On 05 December 2020 at 19h34 I shared with Mr Makhathini a message I had sent to the
Group HR Executive, Dr Mojaki Mosia at 07h13 and shared with Mr Mxakwe at 17h15, asking
about the possibility of revising my scale code/salary downwards. In that message I said to
him, “If I am to hold any moral high ground on this (restructuring) I need to demonstrate my
personal commitment to the cause”

My proposal to have my salary reduced was never entertained as I got told about the job
content of my position and the related evaluation. However, this is not the point I was making,
it was about showing commitment to the retrenchment process which was meant to reduce
the wage bill and do so in consideration for those who were affected by retrenchments.

Mr Mxakwe, in this matter, has chosen to attack me for his own failures.

ON PRETORIA NEWS OFFICE CLOSURE

In conclusion, arguing for the closure of the Pretoria office, Mr Mxakwe says “the cost to
maintain the Tshwane office for Ikwekwezi News Current Affairs is unjustified and a financial
burden that the SABC cannot afford”. Contrary to what he says, closing the Pretoria news
office was never part of the restructuring plan and therefore it could not have been part of
any consultations for the Section 189 process. The News division did not include this proposal
in its new structure.

When the matter was raised later, I argued that anyone who understands the significance of
a public news service in any country would be able to comprehend that SABC News cannot
be without a presence in the capital city. This is the seat of government, as well as the base
of international representatives. I said it would be unimaginable for the BBC to be without a
presence in London. The Government Communications and Information Service was raised as
an alternative to house the Pretoria newsroom during one of the discussions on the matter,
despite it being denied now.

I objected to this on the grounds that it would compromise the independence of the
newsroom and make it appear as though it were a government mouthpiece. My proposal was
that we needed to find a smaller office to house the Pretoria newsroom. To expect journalists
to commute between Johannesburg and Auckland Park while chasing time-bound stories
would be disastrous for the newsroom. As a concerned citizen sitting outside the SABC, I
would still argue for it to be kept open through an alternative smaller space, as its presence
in the capital city is of strategic importance to the SABC and the country. A complete closure

9
of the Pretoria office is an irrational decision and undermines the ability of the public news
service to deliver adequately on its mandate.

I present detailed responses to the statements submitted by Mr Mxakwe and Mr

Makhathini in the parts to follow.

Phathiswa Magopeni
25 February 2022

10