Willemse's TV days are over
NEWS: Controversial former Springbok wing Ashwin Willemse’s days as a television analyst appears to be over.
Willemse, who controversially stormed off a live TV show in a petulant rant that caused a racial storm, will no longer work for the pay-TV station.
SuperSport Head of Communications Clinton van der Berg confirmed to rugby365 that Willemse’s contract with the broadcaster “has expired” and he will not be back on air.
On May 19 Willemse walked out of a studio during a live broadcast, saying he would not work with people who “undermined” and “patronised” him.
He suggested the behaviour of fellow analysts Naas Botha and Nick Mallett were “was rooted in racism”.
An investigation by the company found that the conduct of Mallett and Botha in an off-air conversation and in the live broadcast was not racist.
Willemse said he was taking his case the South African Human Rights Commission.
“We have not heard from the Equality Court,” Van der Berg told rugby365.
“We are in communication with the SA Human Rights Commission.
“We referred Advocate Maleka SC’s report to the Commission, in accordance with one of his recommendations following his independent review of the matter.”
He said they would not be adding to this statement.
SuperSport appointed Advocate Vincent Maleka, a respected, independent professional, to review Willemse’s allegations “fully and objectively”.
Maleka conducted an extensive process and produced a comprehensive 50-page report, which was made available to the media.
Advocate Maleka found the following:
* That the conduct of Naas Botha and Nick Mallett during the off-air conversation with Ashwin Willemse and during the live studio broadcast of the post-match commentary of the match “does not manifest naked racism and was not motivated by racist considerations”.
* Assisted by Prof Habib, Advocate Maleka SC also found that there was also no evidence of Naas or Nick exhibiting either intended or unintended subtle racism.
* The incident cannot be explained on the basis of the suggestion or suspicion that Ashwin was, for the most part, not present in the studio when the second half of the rugby match was televised.
* There are two factors which provide a reasonable explanation for the incident. The first is the (mistaken) technical assumption that there was enough time for all the analyst to express their pre-match analysis or commentary of the Lions/Brumbies rugby match. However, the switch to the live broadcast happened sooner than anticipated. Consequently, there was no time for Ashwin to express his views. The panel then agreed, off-air, that Ashwin would be given the first opportunity to speak after the game. The second is that it is reasonable to assume that Ashwin may have regarded the common stance adopted by Nick and Naas as patronising when they insisted that he should thereafter speak first.
By Jan de Koning
@king365ed
@rugby365com
