It would appear we were hasty in thinking that the Parly committee probing the SABC was a shining example of what parliamentarians should do, writes Don Makatile.
There's a danger in basking in premature jubilation as we did while following the televised working sessions of Parliament’s ad hoc committee probing the crisis at the SABC.
You're bound to come down with a thud if the unexpected happens, such as when the mad rationale was advanced at their last sitting on Friday to adopt the 47-page report without recommendations.
The frustration of DA member of the committee Phumzile van Damme, who lamented her colleague’s lily-livered display at the last hurdle, was understandable.
“I don’t support the position that we do half our work and suddenly we get cold feet,” she said.
It's a fair concern.
The only logical thing for the committee to have done was to go the whole hog after the exemplary and meticulous manner with which they approached this task of excising the rot from the public broadcaster was beamed live into our living rooms.
Their sessions boasted more "infotainment" than the average soapie.
Now, all of a sudden, so the DA alleges, the ANC element of the committee - whose chairperson, Vincent Smith, is also a party member - took instructions from Luthuli House not to include recommendations in the report.
As with many South Africans, a firm opinion was forming in our heads that this committee was a shining example of what parliamentarians should do - put their ideological differences aside and serve the interests of the public.
It would appear that we were hasty in arriving at that conclusion. In a few short sentences, chairperson Smith planted a seed of doubt in the very heads that were beginning to hail him as a hero and hold him up as a model public servant.
“To our friends who have walked this journey with us, a report will go out which has been duly adopted by this House, that will exclude the recommendations. The report will go out at the end of the day or as soon as possible, to all names that were mentioned.”
Whether by default or design, Smith failed to mention that all but the DA agreed with the contents of the report and signed it off to the affected parties for comment.
Even SABC News quoted Smith as saying: “In essence, everybody that gave testimony, including the minister, will be given this document. They will be asked to respond to us by February 16, at the latest. This committee will reconvene if given permission by the powers that be, from the 14th, and on the 22nd we will adopt and submit it to Parliament, that will then deal with it, whatever it deems fit to do with it.”
It is just a pity that the principals of the committee members decided to interfere at this late stage, when the committee had endeared itself to the hearts of South Africans.
But no amount of skulduggery will take away from the good work the committee has done so far. Thanks to their painstaking efforts, we now know those like Communications Minister Faith Muthambi, former board chairperson Dr Ben Ngubane and the Little Man at the centre of the crisis, Hlaudi Motsoeneng, have not covered themselves in glory.
No amount of clandestine machinations will change this.