Multichoice has hit back at claims by the Democratic Alliance that it had taken part in secret meetings with the SABC, agreeing to pay kickbacks to the public broadcaster for help influencing TV law.<\/p>\n
The DA this week released a statement along with minutes from a high-level meeting between Multichoice and the SABC, seemingly implicating the latter in offering a R100 million ‘kickback’ for the SABC’s help in influencing government policy over set top box encryption.<\/p>\n
The party claimed that Multichoice was attempting to solidify a monopoly in the TV market, and that it would go as far as bribing the Guptas (through association with ANN7) and the SABC to do so.<\/p>\n
In a statement on Thursday, however, the Naspers-owned media company said that there were no secret clandestine meetings, no kickbacks and nothing untoward in the meetings it held with the SABC – only business-as-usual negotiations.<\/p>\n
Nolo Letele, executive chairman, MultiChoice South Africa Holdings, said he attended the meeting, but “it was certainly not secret and there is nothing illegal or improper in those minutes,” he said.<\/p>\n
According to Multichoice, the DA made two simple mistakes in its press statements around the issue:<\/p>\n
Firstly, the meeting was not secret. “There was no clandestine meeting. The meeting was held at the request of the SABC, on their premises and like other SABC board meetings was recorded. Top management and board members of both parties were represented,” Multichoice said.<\/p>\n
Secondly, the motive behind select quotes was assumed or imputed by the DA, it said.<\/p>\n
“One of our team said ‘we don\u2019t normally pay for news channels’ and some strange motive is imputed \u2013 that MultiChoice made corrupt payments to the SABC simply for their support on non-encryption of set top boxes.<\/p>\n
“This, among other statements, is commercial discussion, mere sales talk to manage financial expectations. It is well known that we pay for many news channels. SABC wanted Multichoice to pay as much as possible and Multichoice wanted to pay as little as possible,” the group said.<\/p>\n
“Selective reference is also made to the minutes. From the minutes it\u2019s clear that the decision on encryption was not one the SABC could make. Ms L P Mokhobo, (the chairperson of that meeting) makes this clear: ‘\u2026. this decision is really a government decision. The SABC has no power over it’.”<\/p>\n
Multichoice said that, at the time, there were two popular views on encryption, and its view was well known.<\/p>\n
“The contestation was fierce and both sides lobbied hard for their respective positions. The decision on encryption was made by government in policy. The Minister\u2019s policy decision was that of no encryption and led to extensive litigation ultimately ending in the Constitutional Court,” it said.<\/p>\n
“MultiChoice has a long standing relationship with the SABC dating back to the early 1980s. The parties have bought and sold content from and to each other for many years, and will continue to do so,” it said.<\/p>\n