Right of reply: Lotteries commission responds to Sershan Naidoo’s allegations

Read GroundUp’s interview with Sershan Naidoo here.

Distributing Agencies (DAs) of the National Lotteries Commission (NLC) are creatures of statute, the Lotteries Amendment Act, 2015, (“the Act”). It follows, therefore, that as is the case with all DAs, the Arts, Culture, National Heritage Distributing Agency (ACNHDA) in particular on which Mr Sershan Naidoo sat and served since inception derive their mandate, scope, duties and responsibilities from the Act. To that end, the legitimacy and integrity of DAs as informed by the Act is beyond reproach, which is an important factor Mr Naidoo has conveniently not challenged nor contemplated challenging.

As NLC we deem it prudent to assert and validate the process followed in appointing members of the DAs, and in this regard, narrow it down to ACNHDA members whose appointment followed a rigorous process to determine, among others, their probity, competency and skills through oral interviews and competency assessments. The members were drawn from and possess diverse backgrounds in social sciences, cultural and natural heritage, environment, law, arts, culture to name but a few.

Until his severance from NLC through repudiation of an employment contract as the CCMA correctly found, at no stage did Mr Naidoo report any misgivings about the integrity of the members with whom he served. Since its appointment and assumption of office on 5 December 2016, the ACNHDA, of which Mr Naidoo is one of the founding members, the functionality and adjudication of applications for funding from worthy causes is primarily guided by the NLC Act and terms of reference approved by the board. These provide for ethical and professional conduct; independence; discharging of duties and responsibilities without, fear, favour or prejudice.

In his missive, it is clear that Mr Naidoo has not challenged the probity and competence of the ACNHDA as a collective in adjudicating and taking decisions on applications that came before them, let alone the outcome thereof. At most, what he appears to be addressing are matters outside the realm of and not within the remit of the ACNHDA as an adjudication forum in which all discussions are recorded and decisions taken during the sittings. It is common cause that neither the board nor the commission as an administrative body and its leadership could interfere with adjudication. At best, they ensure DAs operate within the approved legislative and policy frameworks.

We reject with contempt the posturing by Mr Naidoo that certain applications would come with items that he mentioned and create the false impression that members of DAs would approve funding of any items as they come without scrutinising the application in terms of meeting the NLC’s strategic focus areas, possible impact on the community to whom the project is meant, feasibility of implementation and availability of budget, to name but a few.

It is mischievous and ignorant of Mr Naidoo not to indicate to the public that the DAs collectively use the Funding Capping Document which undergirds and moderates the determination of tolerance levels for certain generic cost drivers in the diverse projects applied for and coming from the different sectors, be they sports and recreation, arts, culture, heritage, environment, social welfare, etc.

We contend, therefore, that as NLC it is unfathomable that as an individual he could raise different and opposing views within the adjudication sitting, be it certain line items in the application for funding with his fellow former members of ACNHDA, and expect his voice to prevail over credible others who may opine differently as a majority. It is unconventional and against good corporate governance for him to expect the substitution of the majority views in an adjudication sitting for his own.

On record, Mr Naidoo had on some occasions when he differed with his fellow ACNHDA members abruptly recused himself from adjudication and threatened to go to amaBhungane. This is not uncommon since the terms of reference of DAs provide for such eventualities, in which case his rights not to continue with participation for one reason or another are enshrined and respected.

The issue of pro-active funding raised by Mr Naidoo has been ventilated in the media spaces for too long and has now become stale as far as we are concerned. Suffice to say the NLC is following the spirit and letter of the law when implementing related approved NLC policies. All NLC processes in so far as project funding since the inception of full-time DAs is concerned have gone through and passed audit scrutiny.

Should Mr Naidoo have any evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever by NLC or its functionaries, he is at liberty to report such to any law enforcement agencies at his disposal and convenience.

Last but not least, cases, especially labour related, are won and lost in court and not in the media. We implore Mr Naidoo to exercise his rights and act within the law in asserting them and restrain himself from making unfounded and untested allegations that are potentially and in fact defamatory and damaging to the good name of the NLC. It is disrespectful of him to cast aspersions on the integrity of DAs and, by necessary implication, the members thereof, which creates an impression in the courts of public opinion that they lack probity when the opposite, in fact, holds true.

NLC reserves its right to seek remedy in an appropriate forum. DM

The author is the Stakeholder, marketing & communications manager at the National Lotteries Commission.

Views expressed are not GroundUp’s.