Almost two years after the auditor-general issued a damning finding that the CEO of the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) was not qualified for the role, divisions have emerged in the agency’s board on how to handle the crisis.
The MDDA is a government agency tasked with funding community and small enterprise media.
In 2024, the Office of the Auditor-General of SA (AGSA) slapped it with a non-compliance finding for the 2023-24 financial year regarding CEO Shoeshoe Qhu’s appointment. It found that she did not have the required accounting and financial qualifications for the job. The AG declared the former SABC radio executive’s appointment irregular.
The finding was supported by Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys Incorporated’s legal opinion, dated October 2024, which concluded that her appointment constituted a breach of the Media Development and Diversity Agency Act and has resulted in irregular expenditure under the Public Finance Management Act.
However, board divisions were laid bare this week when Sunday World sought comment from the MDDA on why the audit finding and legal opinion had been ignored for almost two years while Qhu continued heading the agency.
In an initial response to our query, the MDDA’s Ayabulela Poro said the CEO enjoyed the full support of the board.
However, a board member said the response as it was not sanctioned by the full board.
Thembelani Mpakati, in a WhatsApp message circulated to board members and sent to the Sunday World, said: “Who responded to the questions and under what mandate did they speak on behalf of the board? … I differ from what member (name withheld) expressed in response to the call she received from the Sunday World.”
In an email message to the rest of the board, Mpakati wrote: “There is no campaign to destabilise the agency … The issue of the CEO’s appointment remains questionable and controversial.”
In the email to board members sent on Thursday, he reiterated that the media response had not been board-sanctioned.
“I can confirm, without any shadow of doubt, that the response sent together with your questions as an MDDA board member is something I am seeing for the first time. But I am not surprised. There have been consistent efforts to conceal information from board members by certain individuals within the MDDA. In short, the response you received does not represent the position of the MDDA.”
On Friday, the other members of the MDDA board issued a joint statement saying the matter was subject to a separate legal challenge and the board would not engage in public commentary that might prejudice the judicial process.
The board said Mpakati’s statements did not constitute the board’s position.
On Friday, Mpakati stood by his previous utterances. “I am not part of the lies that are being peddled by the board to protect an illegal and irregular appointment … I stand by the legal opinion and auditor-general’s recommendations.”
Last week, the AGSA confirmed that it had raised a non-compliance finding. “The audit work we performed concluded that the appointment did not fully comply with section 12(1) of the Act … the MDDA consequently incurred irregular expenditure, disclosed in its annual financial statements as irregular expenditure under assessment’ after consultation with the National Treasury.
“The MDDA management’s responses to the finding did not change the outcome. The matter has not been concluded or referred to any structure pending the outcome of the litigation process launched by a member of the public. However, the annual reports of the MDDA, which include the disclosure of the irregular expenditure as under assessment, have been tabled in Parliament,” said spokesperson Harold Maloka.
William Baloyi, spokesperson for minister in the presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, under whom MDDA falls, said that after the AGSA had issued the final audit opinion to the MDDA, the board would brief the minister on the audit outcomes.
- The Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) CEO Shoeshoe Qhu was found unqualified for her role by the Auditor-General and legal opinion for lacking required financial credentials, resulting in irregular expenditure.
- Despite the 2024 audit finding and legal advice, the MDDA board has been divided on addressing the CEO’s irregular appointment, with conflicting internal statements about board support.
- Board member Thembelani Mpakati publicly challenged the board's official responses, accusing some members of concealing information and supporting an illegal appointment.
- The MDDA board declined further public comment citing ongoing legal proceedings, while the Auditor-General confirmed the finding and irregular expenditure disclosure in Parliament.
- The board is expected to brief Minister Khumbudzo Ntshavheni after the final audit opinion, with the issue unresolved pending litigation outcomes.
Almost two years after the auditor-general issued a damning finding that the CEO of the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) was not qualified for the role, divisions have emerged in the agency’s board on how to handle the crisis.
In 2024, the Office of the Auditor-General of SA (AGSA) slapped it with a non-compliance finding for the 2023-24 financial year regarding CEO
However, board divisions were laid bare this week when
In an initial response to our query, the MDDA’s Ayabulela Poro said the CEO enjoyed the full support of the board.
However, a board member said the response as it was not sanctioned by the full board.
In an email message to the rest of the board, Mpakati wrote: “
In the email to board members sent on
“I can confirm, without any shadow of doubt, that the response sent together with your questions as an MDDA board member is something I am seeing for the first time. But I am not surprised.
On Friday, the other members of the MDDA board issued a joint statement saying the matter was subject to a separate legal challenge and the board would not engage in public commentary that might prejudice the judicial process.
On Friday, Mpakati stood by his previous utterances. “I am not part of the lies that are being peddled by the board to protect an illegal and irregular appointment … I stand by the legal opinion and auditor-general’s recommendations.”
Last week, the AGSA confirmed that it had raised a non-compliance finding. “
“
William Baloyi, spokesperson for minister in the presidency
Seems to me that the board is trying to shield itself from its irregular actions. I respect Mpakati’s dissent as board members have the responsibility not only to ensure compliance with the laws, but also exercise due diligence in their conduct and section-making. His response makes me suspect that he never supported the appointment, but as expected in boards, it is likely that the decision of the majority held sway.