Issued by: Ministry for Communications
3 April 2000
Pretoria - Various articles, particularly the Sunday Independent of 2 April 2000, claiming there was "political interference" in the process of licensing a third cellular operator for South Africa is untrue. "I wish the people of this country to know the truth," says Minister Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri.
Firstly, Section 15 of the SA Telecommunications Act (No 103 of 1996) requires SATRA councillors to recuse himself/herself if "in relation to an application relating to a licence, he or she or his or her family member or partner is a director, member or business partner of, or has an interest in the business of the applicant;
Secondly, on various occasions, auditors appointed by the Auditor General indicated a possible conflict of interest if links between the SATRA Chairperson's partner and an applicant existed. The matter was raised with the Chairperson in January on the assumption that he may have de-registered himself from the company, though this was not recorded by the Registrar of Companies.
Thirdly, the Chairperson signed an affidavit on January 25, 2000 in which he stated, inter alia, that he was a co-founder and co-director of a telecommunications company; and that he had discussions with his co-director during March / April 1997. He indicated during these discussions that he would have to recuse himself from being involved in any process related to the evaluation of applications submitted for the third cellular licence if his co-director was an applicant for the licence.
Fourthly, the Auditor General submitted his report to the Minister. The report found that though the co-director was not an applicant, he appeared to have an interest in the third cellular licence application; and that both the co-director and the Chairperson were registered directors of the telecommunications company.
The Minister met with the Chairperson at her request on the day she received the Auditor General's report, and showed him the contents of the report. The Minister pointed out that according to the Act, there may be perceptions of possible conflict of interest on his part, and therefore suggested that he consider recusing himself. He informed the Minister that he was unaware that the partnership had not been legally dissolved.
It was on this basis that the Minister had approached the Chairperson and had informed the President's legal advisor who concurred that there may be a perception of conflict of interest which could lead to possible litigation that could delay the licensing process. (The President's legal advisor was consulted on the basis that the President appoints SATRA councillors while the Minister for Communications has overall management responsibilities for SATRA.)
The approach made to the Chairperson was in this context and had nothing to do with so-called political interference. "It is a reflection of the poor state of journalism in South Africa when journalists fail to understand the law and the issue of conflict of interests," the Minister says.
At no stage did the Minister force a recusal. "I acted with the interests of all parties and stakeholders in mind. It would have been a dereliction of my mandate and responsibilities as Minister had I not done anything once presented with these facts," she says.
On the day SATRA was to begin adjudicating the applicants for the third cellular licence, the Chairperson informed the Minister that he had that day been de-registered as a director of the telecommunications company.
By late Monday, April 3, 2000, the Minister had not received a formal notification from SATRA of who the recommended applicant was. "I remain committed to announcing the successful applicant as soon as possible," she says.