On Wednesday, 16 January 2018 I wrote and published an article relating to Vision View and SuperSport (“the article”). In the article, I, amongst others, described Vision View as controversial and that it concluded a dodgy contract with the SABC. I also mentioned how the SIU has succeeded in setting aside this contract between Vision View and the SABC. In writing the article, I did so without first having had afforded Vision View a right of reply and also without having included Vision View’s version contained in its media statement dated Tuesday, 13 November 2018. The Johannesburg High Court delivered judgment on Friday, 9 November 2018 in the matter between the SIU and the SABC on the one hand Vision View on the other hand. In this judgment, the court found, amongst others that:
a. it was not contended for by the SIU and the SABC and there was no evidence to suggest that there was any collusion, corruption or irregular conduct which brought about and facilitated the conclusion of the contract between Vision View and SABC;
b. there was no conduct before, during and after the conclusion of the contract between Vision View and SABC which is questionable on the part of Vision View;
c. Vision View was not opportunistic and did not seek to snatch a lucrative contract from the SABC;
d. Vision View has substantially performed to at least 95% in terms of the contract between Vision View and the SABC;
e. the fact that the services procured by the SABC from Vision View may not have been planned for cannot be placed at the door of Vision View;
f. although the contract between SABC and Vision View be set aside owing to the fact that the SABC did not follow its own procurement policy, such an order to set aside the contract shall not (a) divest Vision View of its rights flowing from the due performance under that contract and (b) affect the dispute resolution clause 17 in the contract; and
g. the court ordered SABC and Vision View to continue with the arbitration initiated by Vision View in order to determine (a) the performance by Vision View which is being disputed by the SABC and (b) the payment due by the SABC to Vision View.
I hereby unreservedly apologise to Vision View for the article.