A concerned citizen has dragged the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) to the Joburg High Court seeking to set aside the appointment of the entity’s CEO Shoeshoe Qhu.
Wants court to declare appointment irregular
Thabiso Phaleng, a Gauteng resident, believes that the MDDA committed a blunder when it lowered the requirements for the highest position in the organisation to favour Qhu.
Consequently, he wants the court to release an order declaring that Qhu did not meet the prescribed requirements to be appointed to the position of chief executive as set out in the advert for that position, which was advertised by the MDAA.
Further, he wants the court to declare that the decision of the MDDA to appoint Qhu as CEO unlawful or irrational or unconstitutional, and review it and set it aside.
According to Phaleng’s founding affidavit, which we have seen, it was bogus of the MDDA to set qualifications requirements for the position higher in May 2023, only to lower the standards five months later.
Premeditated move
He believes that this was a predetermined move to advantage Qhu, who does not meet the requirements of the original advert for the position.
The original advert wanted someone with an NQF level 9 qualification as well as five years experience in executive management.
However, in an unusual turn of events, the second advert was lowered to require NQF level 8 and eight years in senior management, of which it was said five years in executive management “would be advantageous”.
Phaleng writes in his affidavit: “I submit that the reduction of the qualification criteria that appointed [Qhu] is unreasonable and irrational for the position of CEO.
“This is so because there is no rational relationship between of the qualification requirement from NQF level 9 to NQF level 8, whereas there was a person who qualified that applied for the post when it was initially advertised,” he goes on.
Master’s degree
“It is clear that the initial advert required applicants to possess a minimum of a master’s degree. And by the time of publication of the advert, there were people who applied and qualified. Some of them were highly qualified and experienced in the community media sector.”
Phaleng believes the MDDA owes the court and the public answers as to why it lowered the standard and elected to recruit on a lowered bar than the original set standard that is in line with the MDDA Act.
“It is submitted that the decision is not rationally connected to the purpose for which it was taken, namely to address measures to improve public sector service delivery and ensure a meritocratic selection procedure and criteria that is grounded on professionalism; capability, impartiality and fairness to contribute to a competent and ethical state.”
MDDA to defend court action
It is believed that MDDA board chairperson Prof Hlengani Mathebula has instructed that the MDDA must defend the legal action.
MDDA spokesperson Margaret Ndawonde had not responded to questions as the time of publication.
The entity’s response will be added to the story as soon as they respond.
