Pretoria - Cricket South Africa's remuneration committee would not have approved millions of rands in bonus payments if it knew staff had already received money for the same work, former CSA finance committee chairperson Hentie van Wyk said on Tuesday.
Van Wyk told the ministerial inquiry into CSA that its CEO Gerald Majola should have disclosed details of bonuses paid by the International Cricket Council (ICC) and the Indian Premier League (IPL) to either the CSA board or the remuneration committee.
"The biggest cloud around that (the IPL and ICC bonuses) was that it was not revealed," Van Wyk said.
"It was not disclosed anywhere, because when we decided on the bonuses we included the (organisational) performances of the IPL and ICC (tournaments). We see it as a double payment.
"If we knew at that stage, when we had the remuneration committee (meeting), that they had already received these bonuses, we would not have given them eight times the monthly salary.
"That is how we viewed it. We also said that the money should be paid back to finalise the financial statements for that year."
The inquiry heard earlier that Majola was among 40 CSA staff members who received significant bonuses in May 2010, despite having been paid by the ICC and IPL for hosting cricket tournaments in 2009.
Van Wyk said the bonuses from the ICC and IPL were made known only two months later in July 2010 through an internal audit process conducted by the CSA audit committee.
Judge Chris Nicholson, who heads the inquiry, asked Van Wyk about a meeting held on July 10, 2009, when it was believed Majola verbally disclosed the bonuses.
Van Wyk said Majola was asked by a member at the conclusion of the meeting whether CSA staff had received bonuses.
According to Van Wyk, Majola said he had negotiated with the IPL for bonuses for his staff.
However, Van Wyk said this declaration had not been sufficient, particularly with regards to the substantial amounts involved.
"With the whole statement there is something fishy," he said.
"It should be declared with names. And, to my mind, seeing that the amounts are substantial, it should have been declared.
"I don't think that (verbal statement) is adequate."