Cape Town - SA Rugby President Mark Alexander, who is also a South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC) board member, denies that he voted for Tubby Reddy to keep his job as CEO of SASCOC after an internal investigation found him guilty of sexual harassment.
The war between Reddy and SASCOC dates back to July last year when Reddy was suspended following allegations of sexual harassment that were filed against him by a colleague.
Since then, Reddy has also been accused of failing to fully disclose to the SASCOC board his financial dealings with several stakeholders and service providers, while he has also accused SASCOC and its president, Gideon Sam, of bugging his office and house in a smear campaign to get rid of him.
It all came to an end this week when SASCOC confirmed that a disciplinary inquiry headed up by Advocate Anton Myburgh SC resulted in Reddy being axed from his job, along with Chief Financial Officer Vinesh Maharaj and Executive Manager Jean Kelly.
Reports suggested that Alexander was one of only two SASCOC board members to vote against Reddy's dismissal, but the SA Rugby boss has denied as much, casting doubt over the disciplinary process.
According to Alexander, the SASCOC board members were only given the report into Myburgh's findings after they had been asked to vote on Reddy's future.
Alexander says he did not feel comfortable making a judgement on Reddy until he had heard both sides of the story and also discussed the findings of the report with his colleagues on the SASCOC board.
"I take note of the findings by the independent chairperson," Alexander told Sport24.
"I am not comfortable with us implementing these findings and punitive measures without the defendants being given an opportunity to respond.
"I think in the interests of due process and to provide more clarity of the charges listed, we request that the defendants provide evidence to mitigate them, either in writing or in person.
"That is not saying 'yes' or 'no'. I just asked for them to complete the due process."
Alexander said that the findings of the inquiry should have been tabled to Reddy, Maharaj and Kelly and that only after they had been given a chance to respond should a decision be taken on their futures.
"That completes the process of due process," Alexander said.
"I am asking for one more additional step so that they cannot challenge us afterwards. Based on the response, you could then find them guilty and complete the process.
"This is now a process where people haven't responded, and I'm not comfortable. I believe that if somebody has done something wrong it must be dealt with, and dealt with accordingly."
Alexander added that he was not in possession of the documentation that had come as a result of the inquiry when he was asked to place his vote.
"So how do you make an informed decision?" he asked.
"It was irresponsible. I respect the decision of the Senior Council, but let them do something in mitigation like in a court of law.
"That is the process of what I asked for ... and what is wrong with that?
"It would be irresponsible of any Director, in the absence of having the full documentation, to make a decision and that is why I asked for this additional step so that I could hear the responses from the other side.
"We should have called a board meeting and discussed the findings. We should have been briefed on what was found ... we don't have that.
"I never voted 'yes' and I never voted 'no' ... I asked for one more step."