The central premise of the argument is a man may have greater success than a woman in dealing with the existing issues of sexism in the government and other bodies. This assumes that a man is appointed who will earnestly defend women's issues. A flawed assumption, as the article has already pointed out that not a single male colleague of Radebe spoke out about his behaviour.  

Logically though, if replacing a woman with a man can't resolve the issue, perhaps the only solution is to replace all the men with women?