The SABC on Thursday argued that Hlaudi Motsoeneng\u2019s appointment was an internal arrangement and did not constitute an exercise of public power, and thus a court could not review it.<\/p>\n
The public broadcaster was on Thursday applying to the Western Cape High Court for leave to appeal its earlier ruling on Motsoeneng\u2019s appointment as group executive of corporate affairs.<\/p>\n
The court ruled in December that his appointment was unlawful and that he could not hold any position at the broadcaster, unless a Public Protector’s 2014 report on his appointment as chief executive officer was overturned, or a new disciplinary inquiry cleared him.<\/p>\n
Stephan du Toit, for the SABC, said the judgment set an important precedent.<\/p>\n
“It would allow, in future, outsiders to interfere with the employment policies of any state department or any organ of state,” he said.<\/p>\n
Du Toit said Motsoeneng\u2019s appointment constituted an internal arrangement, and was within the chief executive officer\u2019s managerial competence.<\/p>\n
While the SABC was a public body, not all its decisions constituted an exercise of public power, he said.<\/p>\n
“The public has no interest in the staffing of the SABC. The SABC\u2019s employees are its employees, not employees of the State.”<\/p>\n
Du Toit contested argument by Anton Katz, for the Democratic Alliance, that taxpayers’ money was at stake.<\/p>\n
There was “evidence on paper” that only 3% of the SABC\u2019s money came from government, and 85% from its commercial activities.<\/p>\n
He felt it would be better for the Supreme Court of Appeal to make a definitive decision on what constituted the exercise of public power.<\/p>\n
In reply, Katz said the floodgates regarding courts\u2019 interference in the appointment of public servants were opened after a Constitutional Court judgment in 2012.<\/p>\n
The court ruled that President Jacob Zuma\u2019s appointment of former National Director of Public Prosecutions Menzi Simelane was invalid.<\/p>\n
Du Toit countered that Simelane\u2019s and Motsoeneng\u2019s positions could not be compared.<\/p>\n
Katz said, even if he was wrong, Motsoeneng\u2019s position was not on the same level as that of a cleaner.<\/p>\n
“This is one of those positions akin or analogous to the COO\u2019s position. This appointment is clearly the exercise of public power.”<\/p>\n
He said it would be difficult to argue that courts were not allowed to review decisions that involved corruption or nepotism.<\/p>\n
Katz argued that the SABC’s acting group CEO James Aguma, and not the SABC board, should pay the costs of the application.<\/p>\n
Du Toit said doing so would be unfair because there was no recklessness or acting in bad faith.<\/p>\n
Judges Owen Rogers and Andre le Grange reserved judgment until next week. Le Grange said they would need a day or two to consider the arguments.<\/p>\n