SJN Hearings: My hope is a future of equal opportunity for all cricketers

It was never going to be a dolly of a catch that Social Justice and Nation-Building (SJN) ombudsman Advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza found himself under.

But given the evidence provided during the last week of hearings, his job over the next month in compiling his final report should be like taking a firmly-struck drive straight to him in the covers.

Given the legal pedigree of Ntsebeza, I would be surprised if he fumbled. 

As Ntsebeza has often reminded, his brief is to find whether there has been racial and gender discrimination in South African cricket.

For those of us who have been involved in the game since unity, the evidence has clearly backed up what we knew all along – there was most certainly racial discrimination and lingering Apartheid attitudes that caused some fine cricketers and people to be dreadfully treated.

But since around 2010, the issue becomes cloudier as the national team became more representative and more aware of diversity and cultural differences. 

The last week has seen Ntsebeza admit that the evidence provided by those found guilty of attempting to corrupt the game, and who said they had been discriminated against on the basis of their colour – Alviro Petersen, Lonwabo Tsotsobe, Ethy Mbhalati and Thami Tsolekile – was “a red herring”.

Ntsebeza expressed his regret that so much time had been spent on the issue, likening it to “a runaway horse” that was eventually corralled by the testimony of those who led the match-fixing investigation in 2015/16.

So their evidence – save for some of the harrowing tales from Tsolekile’s youth – should be discounted, along with that of former CSA independent director Eugenia Kula-Ameyaw, who ironically came up with the SJN idea.

That Kula-Ameyaw actually has very little clue on the game in this country was borne out by much of her evidence being picked apart by the compelling testimony of SACA chief executive Andrew Breetzke, CSA’s acting head of pathways Eddie Khoza and acting CEO Pholetsi Moseki.

High-profile lawyer David Becker, along with Moseki, also cleared up many of the untruths about how Graeme Smith came to be in CSA’s service as director of cricket.

It is a pity that none of Smith, Mark Boucher or AB de Villiers have given public testimony, but hopefully there is enough in their affidavits for Ntsebeza to have a clear picture of their side of the story.

It is to be hoped that Ntsebeza, who seemed to grow increasingly frustrated towards the end of the hearings but managed to remain in control and exude a definite air of fairness, is able to produce a final report that CSA can call into service to ensure they continue the progress in transformation that they have made.

The importance of the SJN is to guide CSA into the future and not to settle the scores of those who are bitter, especially those who are chiefly responsible for their own demise.

Selection and quotas will always be a contentious issue. 

Even though Khaya Zondo was clearly unfairly treated in 2015, it is difficult to say it was on the basis of his colour given the fact that black people, and not just De Villiers, were involved in that controversy.

Simply put, my hope is that these hearings lead us to a situation where all cricketers in this country have an equal opportunity to play for the Proteas.