Beresford Williams (Gallo)
- Parliament’s sport portfolio committee is ready to assign its legal team to the case should Cricket SA fail to deliver the full Fundudzi report as promised on Friday.
- DA MP Tsepo Mhlongo warned that legal consequences would follow should they “mislead” parliament, again.
- Handing over the Fundudzi report to parliament automatically renders it a public document, Mhlongo explained.
Cricket South Africa (CSA) could face the wrath of parliament’s legal department should they again fail to deliver the full Fundudzi Forensic Services audit report on Friday to the sports portfolio committee as promised earlier this week.
On Tuesday, a day after the Fundudzi summary report was released, CSA were pressed by members of parliament to hand over the full Fundudzi report unedited, with Friday close of business being the final deadline.
CSA have been hiding under the disclaimer that should they release the report publicly, or to stakeholders without a non-disclosure agreement clause, they would open themselves up to legal challenges from those named.
In June, Nenzani told parliament that the first draft of the report was ready and that they would hand a copy over to the sports portfolio committee upon its finalisation, which was 31 July. CSA, however, did not meet that deadline.
In August, acting president Beresford Williams asked for their sitting with parliament to be postponed because the Fundudzi Report was not ready and that they were caught off-guard by the sudden resignations of Nenzani and acting CEO Jacques Faul. Again, they failed to present the report that month.
Independent director and chair of CSA’s audit and risk sub-committee, Marius Schoeman, in whose office the report sits, said: “I will resign if Cricket South Africa does not submit the forensic report by end of business Friday.”
Sport portfolio committee member and DA MP Tsepo Mhlongo warned that further legal repercussions would follow should CSA disobey parliament again.
“Firstly, it was recorded that Mr Marius Schoeman stated clearly that he will resign,” Mhlongo told Sport24.
“They would have misled parliament if they don’t deliver. All CSA members who were at the meeting said we are going to get it tomorrow (Friday).
“If we don’t get it, obviously, there is a rule that when you mislead parliament we will take you to task. Our legal fundis will take over because you cannot mislead the house, especially when it’s recorded.
“If they don’t comply, they must all resign. I stated that clearly in the meeting. People who are implicated, some of them want to stand for positions at the CSA AGM like the [acting] president Beresford Williams.
“But I don’t doubt they will deliver.”
Moreover, CSA admitted in communique that the Fundudzi Report was a “single-sided” analysis bereft of some opposing or challenging views to the findings presented. For instance, former CEO Thabang Moroe, who has been heavily implicated in wrongdoing and dismissed as a result, was not interviewed by Fundudzi, and neither was former COO Naasei Appiah.
It also transpired that “Service Provider X”, whom Sport24 revealed as Unathi Tshotwana, was also not interviewed thoroughly for his version of events but was implicated in alleged improper procurement of services to the tune of R3.5 million.
CSA are now caught in another precarious position as handing the Fundudzi Report over to parliament would render the document, in its entirety, a public document.
“Automatically, when the Fundudzi report is in parliament, it becomes public document,” Mhlongo explained.
“Schoeman tried to explain something about corporate governance and I don’t understand how far the confidentiality extends.
“As it stands, they’ve used the same document, which had different leaks to media houses, to dismiss the former CEO Thabang Moroe. It shows there’s no confidentiality already.
“In my view, they are playing with us. They gave us a summary report, which we didn’t consider, but I read it and I have so many unanswered questions.
“My view is that they’ve used this report for Thabang only. What about other members or board members? Was Thabang working alone? Of course not. He was instructed by the board.”