MultiChoice Press Statement - 31 Jan 2018
MultiChoice Press Statement - 31 Jan 2018
MultiChoice Press Statement - 31 Jan 2018
ON ITS CARRIAGE CONTRACT WITH THE TV CHANNEL ANN7 AND OF GOVERNMENT LOBBYING
INTRODUCTION
Concerns about MultiChoice’s relationship with ANN7 and questions about how it lobbied
Government were raised in the media in November 2017.
As a result, the MultiChoice Audit and Risk Committees came together to assess:
• Whether or not appropriate procedures were followed in relation to the ANN7 contract;
• the payments made by MultiChoice to ANN7; and
• whether or not there were irregularities in the submissions MultiChoice made to the
Minister of Communications.
PROCESS
The Committee was chaired by Don Eriksson CA (SA), and comprised four non-executive directors
and independent non-executive director, Advocate Kgomotso Moroka (SC), who was seconded to
the Committee. The Committee undertook the review on behalf of the Board. The review was
strengthened by the engagement of the services of attorneys Webber Wentzel (legal advice on
lobbying and contracts) and an independent audit firm (forensics and payments)
The committee conducted a thorough and comprehensive review. They met several times, studied
all relevant contracts, reviewed five years of related payments information and
emails, interviewed those involved and did various objective contract and cost comparisons.
The period of review for the scope of work was determined as 1 January 2012 to 30 November 2017.
COMMITTEE FINDINGS
The Committee found procedural shortcomings, but found no evidence of corruption or other illegal
activity. Specifically:
• It is common practice for a broadcaster to pay for content, including local news channels.
The committee’s analysis of the ANN7 contract highlighted the complexity of negotiating a
start-up local news channel – a process which is very costly. The negotiations with ANN7
began at a time when MultiChoice wanted to add local black voices to reflect more diverse
local news coverage on the DStv platform. In addition, annual payments to eTV had
escalated substantially, heading towards R500m p.a. The commercial rationale was to assist
in the development of the new ANN7 channel by contributing to their costs and allow it a
reasonable term of three/five years to develop. Should it fail, MultiChoice would let the
agreement lapse at the end of the period, as allowed for in the contract.
• The payments made to ANN7 were not abnormal relative to other local news channels
carried on the DStv platform. MultiChoice paid an amount to ANN7 for a start-up 24-hour
local news channel that was substantially lower than that paid to eTV. The terms of the
agreement were renegotiated and payments increased when it became apparent that ANN7
needed to improve quality on the channel.
• In addition, the R25million upfront payment to ANN7 made on 15 September 2015 was
neither abnormal nor unusual. Other channels have previously received upfront payments
as part of the channel negotiations.
• The detailed data analytics exercise covering five years of payments made by MultiChoice to
ANN7 validated the payments against the contract.
• The process of negotiating the ANN7 agreements was a collective MultiChoice management
process and not that of an individual. In the Committee’s opinion, this materially reduces the
risk of corrupt activity.
• No correlation was found between payments made to ANN7 and the MultiChoice lobbying
effort.
PROCEDURAL SHORTCOMINGS
• Historically, MultiChoice has not performed a due diligence test on any channel ownership.
Given the experience with ANN7, the Committee is of the view that in future such due
diligence should be instituted and be made compulsory for all new start-up channels.
• Given the fluid nature of lobbying, which is part of the broadcasting and telecoms industry
globally, MultiChoice should study international best practise and formalise its lobbying
process. The new process should be adhered to by all involved to ensure that an acceptable
• When concerns were raised about the owners of ANN7, MultiChoice management should
have acted more swiftly to escalate issues to the Board for formal consideration and
decision.
MULTICHOICE ACTIONS
The MultiChoice board has accepted the findings and recommendations of the MultiChoice Audit &
Risk Committee.
1. Ensure that robust due diligence processes will always be followed for start-up channels.
2. Require management to highlight issues of controversy and reputational risk at the quarterly
Audit and Risk committee meetings. Key issues will be brought to the MultiChoice board for
further consideration.
MultiChoice continues to believe that the wide range of foreign and local news channels
(SABC and ENCA) on our platform – representing widely divergent views, needs to be
supplemented with another local voice. In particular, a black-owned and run channel that
represents the majority of people in this country.
• It must be owned, managed and run by a black South African company, free from any
political or other interference.
“This has been a humbling experience for MultiChoice. While we entered into an agreement for the
ANN7 channel at a time that the extent of State Capture was unknown, we fully understand the
outrage of the public regarding endemic corruption in our country and accept we should have dealt
with the concerns around ANN7 far more swiftly.
While I am pleased that the investigation into the ANN7 contract did not discover any corruption or
other illegal activity, the questions we have faced have been sobering.
We made mistakes and must now embark on a path of restoring public trust.”
IMTIAZ PATEL:
As part of the review, the MultiChoice Audit & Risk Committee also commented on allegations
concerning Imtiaz Patel’s relationship with the Guptas.
MultiChoice notes that there have been concerns raised around his prior connection to the Guptas
as well as the suggestion of inappropriate influence regarding MultiChoice’s dealings with ANN7.
Following the Committee’s work and enquiries made by Naspers, it is clear that Imtiaz Patel’s
previous relationship with the Guptas predates his appointment at MultiChoice, played no role in
the terms negotiated for the ANN7 channel, and that he acted in the interests of the company. The
ANN7 channel was negotiated as a collective by members of the senior management team.
MultiChoice’s agreement with SABC has also been questioned. It should be noted that the
MultiChoice contract with SABC did not form part of the brief given to the Audit and Risk committee.
However, to be clear, Parliament has referred a number of third party agreements to the Special
Investigations Unit (SIU), among them the SABC agreement. MultiChoice is co-operating fully with
this investigation.
Naspers CEO and MultiChoice Board member, Bob van Dijk concluded,
“MultiChoice is a great South African company built on a spirit of entrepreneurial endeavour. But
the presently polarised political environment in South Africa and controversy around the ANN7
channel ownership demanded a higher level of diligence and scrutiny than was the practice
previously. That said, I am pleased that the committee found no evidence of corruption.
I can also confirm that the committee and Naspers found that Imtiaz Patel’s previous relationship
with the Guptas played no role in the negotiation of the ANN7 contract at any time. It is clear that he
always acted in the best interests of MultiChoice.
I want to be clear: MultiChoice South Africa is a company committed to black empowerment and
economic transformation, and is fully aligned with the values of modern South Africa. We will make
sure we take all necessary steps to restore public trust in MultiChoice as a company committed to
making a positive impact in this country.”
ENDS