While this isn’t the Health debate, I want to talk about four doctors and a very sick patient – the South African Post Office.

The first doctor is SAPO’s appointed Administrator, Dr Simo Lushaba, who says he’ll turn a loss of R1,2 billion for 2015, to a loss of R102 million for 2016, and then a massive R 1,3 billion profit by 2017!

How’s the doctor going to effect this miracle cure? Like a surgeon, he’ll cut and cut and cut. Almost three thousand staff will be chopped, 8 mail processing hubs and 652 retail branches shut down.

He says he will put this patient on the road to recovery by cutting out its heart, liver and lungs – and yet still grow revenue with additional business. They’ll do much more – with much less. How?

Well, the SAPO doesn’t need to answer to the public nor compete with the private sector on price or efficiency because it aims to generate 55% of its future business from government on the back of a Cabinet instruction that government MUST redirect at least 30% of its mail and logistics business to the SAPO.

The DA’s values charter is based on freedom, fairness and opportunity. There’s none of that here. This plan shuts down opportunity for any new entrant, SMME or any other player in the market. It’s grossly unfair to any business competing in this space, and introduces a hidden subsidy for the SAPO via the back door because no matter how atrocious or inefficient the service, their new customers – government departments and state owned companies  – are forced to use them.

There’s no need for the entity to compete fairly in a free market. This is a recipe for inefficiency on a massive scale with service delivery once again the biggest victim of all.

The second doctor is Minister Siyabonga Cwele, a medical doctor, whose charming bedside manner has sadly failed to stop the terminal decline of the SA Post Office.

After watching from the sidelines for months as the worst and bloodiest Post Office strike in recent history bled customers at a fatal rate, he finally acted.

You can’t fault his diagnosis. With surgical precision, in November last year, he cut off its head by firing – sorry, resigning – the whole SAPO Board of deployed ANC cadres and trade union representatives. He injected hundreds of millions of taxpayers money into the entity to keep it alive, and put it under administration, the Intensive Care Unit for state owned companies.

So what were these SAPO directors doing while the entity was bleeding to death as a result of their criminal negligence?

Well, they got paid – and paid well.

Over the last two financial years, the Chairperson of the board, the third doctor, Dr HN Manzini, banked a princely R 917,000 for attending 28 meetings.

Mr G Mothema took home R872,000 for 16 meetings.

Ms N Kela pocketed a whopping R 1,038,000 for 36 meetings

Ms N Mthethwa cashed in R 1,249,000 for 31 meetings

The list of multimillion Rand payments for non-executive directors goes on and on.

And if this isn’t painful enough, the real insult to injury is the salary of the CEO, Chris Hlekane, who took home R1,5 million in 2013 and a staggering R3,108,000 in 2014 – the year the SA Post Office couldn’t table its annual report because the Auditor General couldn’t sign off on the entity’s financial statements.

While SAPO’s management should to run the enterprise, the board must exercise oversight by setting the direction and providing guidance. While not required to be hands-on, the board shouldn’t be hands-off either, as this one did by bringing the SAPO to complete collapse.

A developmental mandate is no excuse for a lack of good governance. In fact, given the shareholder is the government – and therefore the South African people – strictly adhering to the principles of good governance by directors of state owned companies is just as important as those imposed on directors of privately owned companies.

I was tempted to invite members of the public who have sorely suffered as a result of SAPO’s inefficiency to sit in the Gallery. But frankly, the Gallery isn’t big enough.

These people are asking the same question – who will take responsibility for the SAPO’s failure to meet its obligations to them?

In my view and that of the SAPO auditors, the symptoms of disease were clearly visible as far back as a year ago.

The Independent Auditor’s Report for year ended March 2014 found “a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt on the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern in future.”

For the year ended March 2015, the report found the entity had breached several sections of the Companies Act.

Critically though, and I quote, “The entity didn’t comply with section 129 of the Companies Act to consider a resolution to commence voluntary business rescue proceedings when it had reasonable grounds to believe that the entity was financially distressed” – and holds the Board directly responsible for this serious breach of corporate governance.

The Companies Act makes no distinction between executive, non-executive directors. It applies to all of them. Section 77 of the Companies Act holds Directors to account, including for consenting to carry on a company’s business, despite knowing that it amounted to reckless trading.

So who will we hold to account?

I must acknowledge the Minister for having the courage to fire – sorry, resign – the sickly Board in November last year, ending their free ride to riches.

But will he send a loud message to those delinquents who think serving on boards of state owned companies has no consequences for irresponsible governance? Will he lay charges under the Companies Act against those directors whose negligence led to the critical state the SAPO’s in today?

My fourth doctor, the honorary doctor President Jacob Zuma, infamously told the SA Local Government Association summit in Midrand recently – and I quote – “If I was a dictator, I would change a few things.”

The SAPO’s dictator, Dr Lushaba, is not a SAPO director – or is he? Tell us Minister, when will an effective and competent SAPO Board be appointed?

An effective board creates value. It will take high quality decisions to help the SA Post Office achieve its objectives in a sustainable and financially responsible manner that grows its value and enhances its reputation.

An effective board leads to a successful company that builds confidence among its employees, customers, suppliers, shareholders and all stakeholders.

This is what we call good governance. South Africans, who are sick to death of bailing out inefficient state owned companies, expect – and are entitled to – nothing less.

Finally, I suggest Dr Lushaba resist the urge to accept a SAPO Board appointment. It may turn out to be a hospital pass, because if the Minister won’t hold past, present and future directors accountable, rest assured that the DA will.