The matter between BEMAWU and others vs SABC and 2 others will be heard in the Labour Court on & November 2017.

BEMAWU obtained a personal cost order against Mr Motsoeneng and Tebele for their role in the dismissal of the SABC 8.

Both Motsoeneng & Tebele filed leave to appeal against the personal cost orders. The judgement is tomorrow, 7 November 2017 at 10:00, 6th Floor.




c/o The Company Secretary


Auckland Park


For Attention: Ms Theresa Geldenhuys (



The Group Chief Executive


Auckland Park


For attention: Mr James Aguma (



The Group Executive

Group Human Resources


Auckland Park


For attention: Mr Mohlolo Lephaka (




Dear Sirs,


We have noted with extreme concern, the appointment of Mr Motsoeneng as the GE, Corporate Affairs without the position being advertised as is required by inter alia the Recruitment Policy of the SABC and the alleged payment of a bonus or bonuses to Mr Motsoeneng of R11.4 million as reported by the media.


We request that you provide us – on an urgent basis – and no later than Wednesday, 5 October 2016 at 12:00 with the following information:


1. Was the position of GE: Corporate Affairs advertised?

2. If so, where and when and who applied for the position?

3. If not, why not?

4. Does Mr Motsoeneng hold a tertiary qualification, and if so, what qualification and where and when did he obtain it?  

5. Was Mr Motsoeneng paid a bonus or bonuses in the past three (3) months?

6. If so, on what basis was he paid a bonus or bonuses?

7. What amount was he paid as a bonus or bonuses?

8. When was he paid the bonus or bonuses?

9. What criteria was used to award him the bonus or bonuses?

10. Where does this criteria derived from?

11. Who else was paid a bonus or bonuses?

12. What process was followed to request and approve this bonus or bonuses?

13. Who requested the bonus or bonuses for Mr Motsoeneng and in what capacity?

14. Who recommended the bonus or bonuses for Mr Motsoeneng and in what capacity?

15. Who approved the bonus or bonuses for Mr Motsoeneng and in what capacity?

16. Was the bonus or bonuses paid to Mr Motsoeneng split in two or more payments in an attempt to circumvent the approval processes?

17. Can other employees also apply for, and earn such enormous bonuses, if not why not and if so, how do they go about to apply?

18. Then in terms of the Public Protector’s Report “When Governance and Ethics Fail” (REPORT NO 23 OF 2013/2014):

a. Did the Board recover any monies from any persons in compliance with paragraph (C) (1) of the recommendations of this report?

                                    i. If not, why not?

                                  ii. If so, provide a list of people, amounts and dates these monies were recovered.

b. Did the Board take appropriate disciplinary action against Mr Motsoeneng for :

                                    i. his abuse of power and improper conduct in the appointments and salary increments of Ms Sully Motsweni,

                                  ii. his role in purging senior staff members, resulting in numerous labour disputes and settlement awards against the SABC, and if so when and what was the outcome, if not, why not?

c. Did the Board take disciplinary action against Ms Lulama Mokhobo for her improper conduct in the approval of the salary increment of Mr Motsoeneng, if so when, and if not, why not?

d. Did the Board recover the expenditure from the appropriate persons in respect of the irregular salary increments of Mr Motsoeneng, Ms Motsweni, Ms Khumalo and the freelancers?

                                    i. If so, how much money was recovered, from whom and when?

                                  ii. If not, why not?

e. What action was taken, if any to ensure that the Board takes strict and collective responsibility and working as a collective and not against each other?

f. Was a public apology issued to Ms Ntombela-Nzimandi, Ms Charlotte Mampane and the other former SABC employees who suffered prejudice as a result of the Board and Management’s maladministration involving the failure to handle the administration of its affairs in accordance with the laws, corporate policies and principles of corporate governance?

                                    i. If so, when?

                                  ii. If not, why not?

g. What action was taken to review HR processes pertaining to creation of new posts, appointments and salary scales and progressions, when was it taken, and if none, why have no action been taken?


We await your most urgent reply.




Hannes du Buisson




Madonsela: SABC board not fully co-operating in Motsoeneng probe

JOHANNESBURG – Public Protector Advocate Thuli Madonsela says the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) board has not been co-operating fully with the investigation into allegations of corruption against Hlaudi Motsoeneng
On Tuesday, Motsoeneng reported for duty at the SABC as an “ordinary employee” after the Supreme Court of Appeal rejected his bid for leave to appeal against a High Court ruling that set aside his permanent appointment. 

Madonsela says if Motsoeneng is appointed to any senior position, it will be illegal.

“The last thing you would want to do is to appoint Mr Motsoeneng into any senior position until a proper disciplinary inquiry has been done based on the previous report which was called for in government.”

Madonsela says she has written to Communications Minister Faith Muthambi and the SABC board.

“It was also alleged that the board allows Mr Motsoeneng to do whatever he pleases and in return the board gets to have as many meetings as it wants, and obviously it gets paid for sittings. The board is also given tickets to various events against policy.”

Earlier today, Madonsela said that if Motsoeneng is returned to the permanent position of COO, there would need to be a probe into the SABC board.

“We are conducting an investigation into various allegations of corruption, abuse of power and maladministration by Mr Motsoeneng, who is alleged to be involved in wrongful procurement and the dismissal of people who stand in his way.”

From an article on EWN



James Aguma, Acting GCEO has fingered the unprocedurally (and therefore unlawfully) appointed GE: News and Current Affairs Simon Tebele as the person who should be held personally liable for the cost incurred in the invalid and unlawfull dismissals of three SABC journalists, Lukhanyo Calata, Busisiswe Ntuli and Thandeka Gqubule.

Instead of taking accountability as the Acting GCEO or naming any other party or person, Aguma filed a three page affidavit which by working disputes Tebele’s earlier affidavit filed in the other four journalist’s matter wherein Tebele tried to blame Jimi Matthews, Legal Council and the SABC Labour Relations Department for the dismissals.

In his affidavit Aguma made no mention of Matthews, the Labour Relations Department of the SABC or legal council’s involvement in the matter.

As far as we could establish, (despite it being a requirement or else such evidence will be hearsay), Tebele’s affidavit makes reference to two confirmatory affidavits (in support of his affidavit and version) which was never provided and submitted. His version before court is therefore unsupported, in particular by the people he tried to blame.

Fact is, he had the choice to accept or reject the advice given. Given his seniority in the SABC and the positions he held at the Public Broadcaster he knew exactly what he had to do – which was to at least proceed with a disciplinary hearing before dismissing the journalists.

We now await Tebele’s Affidavit.

photo_2016-08-08_00-18-43 photo_2016-08-08_00-18-49 photo_2016-08-08_00-18-52


Aguma Affidavit



In two (2) affidavits filed minutes before the deadline ordered by the Labour Court, blame is being shifted from pillar to post by two SABC managers in a frantic attempt to avoid being held responsible for the wasted Public Broadcaster’s money.

Sebolelo Ditlhakanyane, Head of Radio News said she never took any decision to fire the journalists  – Simon Tebele, the now illegally appointed Group Executive for SABC News and Current Affairs, took the decision and signed the dismissal letters on her behalf.

Here are some excerpt from their affidavits.

Sebolelo par 6

Tebele who has been described in a 2004 article by The Mail & Guardian as someone “whose credentials in news are a mystery to many” however shifts the blame to the then Acting Group Chief Executive,  Jimmy Matthews.

Ditlhakanyane in her statement said she tried to inform the initiator of the hearing, Simon Molaudzi, (former Education Manager and now personal confidante of  the COO) of the true facts that transpired.

Sebolelo par 19

Despite this, Molaudzi persisted with the hearing.

The disciplinary hearing was postponed, and replaced by so-called Schedule 8 Notices. Ditlhakanyane proceeded to sign and serve these notices she received from TEBELE on the journalists – despite her understanding of what really transpired and her attempt to inform the initiator of the true situation.

Sebolelo par 23

Sebolelo par 23_1

Sebolelo par 24_25

It is clear from her affidavit  Ditlhakanyane at no point in time did anything further to stop, avoid or distance herself from the dismissals.

She knew her name was on the letters, and it is clear from her affidavit that she would have personally signed it if she was in Johannesburg.

sebolelo par 28

sebolelo par 29

See full affidavit here Sebolelo Affidavit

In his affidavit, TEBELE is shifting the blame to MATTHEWS and external legal council.

tebele par 21

tebele par 22

tebele par 30

Tebele par 35

tebele digned

So the matter seems fairly simple.

  1.  Matthews should be approached to file an affidavit in reply to TEBELE.
  2.  Ditlhakanyane never refused, distanced herself or disagree with the Schedule 8 Notices and raised no objection that same carries her name. She then agreed with the dismissals and must pay back the money.
  3. TEBELE took the advice of external council. He had a choice. He could refuse to take that advice. He must pay back the money. He can then sue the external council for the bad advice they gave him. In any event, he states he has followed SABC Policy. That is untrue. The Policy is clear a disciplinary hearing MUST be held.

See full affidavit here Tebele Affidavit





Letter to SABC Employee Relations Manager.

Dear Madam,

Kindly find attached a letter in respect of the announcement made by the SABC “donating” Public Broadcaster Funds to musicians.


Hannes du Buisson


musicians money.pdf




28 July 2016


The Broadcasting, Electronic, Media & Allied Workers Union (BEMAWU) today obtained an arbitration award in favour of Christian (Tian) Olivier uplifting his unfair suspension of five (5) months.

Olivier is the Financial Manager at SABC Audience Services, Auckland Park and acted previously as the GCEO, the CFO of the SABC, and also as the Group Executive, Risk and Compliance.

Olivier was suspended on vague and unfounded allegations that he allegedly “leaked” information to the media in respect of the cost and procurement of the very expensive Rugby World Cup set.

The SABC’s Personnel Regulation does not make provision for a suspension on these allegations and furthermore, it stipulates that “where prima facie” an employee has committed serious misconduct, such as fraud, theft or assault the employee may be suspended.

Today, after five (5) months and without any communication whatsoever by Audit or investigators, the SABC could not present prima facie evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Olivier.

Olivier will report for duty on Monday, 1 August 2016.


Hannes du Buisson







28 July 2016


The Broadcasting, Electronic Media & Allied Workers Union (BEMAWU) today secured a Labour Court order against the SABC inter alia declaring the dismissals of Mr Lukhanyo Calata, Ms. Busisiwe Ntuli and Ms Thandeka Gqubule invalid and therefore null and void.

BEMAWU also secured a cost order against the SABC wherein it has been ordered to file an affidavit within five (5) days identifying the person(s) responsible for the dismissals of the three journalists. Then within a further five (5) days the people so identified must file an affidavit giving reasons why they should not be personally held responsible for the costs.

The effect of this award is that the people responsible for the dismissals of the journalists are already held responsible for the cost. They should now convince the court why they should not pay the cost.

The matter will then be enrolled again to determine the scale on which the individual responsible for the dismissal and the SABC will be liable for the cost.

We believe this judgement will sent a strong message to the Corporate that the Labour Court will not hesitate to pierce the corporate veil and look underneath it to held individuals responsible for vexatious conduct – in particular in public entities. This judgement will also help to balance the scales slightly in favour of employees who often is up against the monitory supremacy and power of corporates and  public entities.

We will relentlessly pursue the cost orders against the individuals responsible for the invalid dismissals of the journalists and the SABC.


Hannes du Buisson



Labour Court Order here.



The seven (7) journalists who have been dismissed unlawfully and invalidly have been re-instated by the SABC.

BEMAWU filed an urgent application in the Labour Court to declare the dismissals of its members Lukhanyo Calata, Busisiwe Ntuli and Thandeka Gqubule invalid and have them reinstated.

The SABC, in reply, and hours before the case had to be heard send this letter to our Attorneys, Webber Wentzel.

What now remains, is the issue of cost.

Our Attorneys have already filed an amended Notice of Motion, and BEMAWU will proceed to the Labour Court on Thursday unless the SABC tender full cost.



Election Overtime

Dear Member,

We have received several enquiries about Election overtime. There is no agreement with BEMAWU in respect of the overtime and therefore the Time Management Policy will apply.

Hereunder parts of the Policy.

· In short, there must be a written agreement not older than one (1) year with the employee to work overtime. If there is no such agreement, an employee may refuse to work overtime.

· If the employee normally works shifts, averaging of hours will apply. If the employee does not work shifts normally, the real hours worked must be credited and/or paid out.

· Overtime must be paid out, unless there is an agreement with management to take the time off, which must be granted and taken within a month.

· If you work more than 12 hours, it must be paid out at double time the end of the following month.

· If you work more than 4 hours and up to 8 hours on Election Day, you will be credited 8 hours and paid for 8 hours. More than 8 hours will be credited at real time and paid at real time worked. (Example: If you work 6 hours, you will be credited 8 hours and paid for 8 hours. If you work 11 hours, you will be credited for 11 hours and paid for 11 hours.)

The complete policy can be found at

3. Overtime

• Employees agreeing to the principle of working overtime will be required to sign a form to this affect. The agreement will enable management to schedule staff for overtime. This agreement will be valid for one year. The agreement will terminate should the employee’s conditions of employment change (i.e. another shift pattern).

• Hours in excess of nine (9) hours per day will be credited at 1½ times normal time. Where averaging does not apply the time earned may be paid out or time given off as agreed between management and the staff member within one (1) month.

• All hours in excess of twelve (12) hours per day will be paid out at double time at the end of the following month.

• Will be limited to ten (10) hours per week.

Hours worked in a normal working week which includes normal and overtime may not exceed fifty (50) hours per week. All hours in excess of fifty (50) hours must be agreed to by the parties concerned and paid out at double time by the end of the following month.

4. Unsociable Hours

• Is defined as the hours from 17:00 to 07:00 on a week day and from 17:00 on a Friday to 07:00 on a Monday.

• Every employee working these hours will receive a ten (10) minute credit every hour or part of an hour worked.

• Management will have the right to either reduce the working hours to compensate for the credits earned or pay out the credits.

• The credits will be revisited at the end of May 1998 after the impact of the credits have been determined at which point it will be the subject of further negotiations.

• Any personnel member currently receiving a shift allowance may elect to continue with or elect to come into the new system.

• Meal intervals will be scheduled as per the Act.

10. Public Holidays

Work on public holidays will be dealt with as follows:

0 – 4 Hours = 4 Hours credited + 4 Hours paid
4 – 8 Hours = 8 Hours credited + 8 Hours paid
8 + Hours = Credit equals hours worked + hours paid equals hours

(10 hours worked – employee will receive 10 hours credit and 10 hours payment)