President Cyril Ramaphosa startled many on Thursday when instead of firing his minister of higher education, Nobuhle Nkabane — a proven liar who had even defied parliament, a legal institution in its own right — took action against DA deputy minister of trade industry and competition Andrew Whitfield.
It is common knowledge that the trip undertaken by Whitfield and his colleagues in the DA to the US in the middle of arguably one of Ramaphosa's toughest international relations crises had infuriated Ramaphosa and his allies.
According to reports by TimesLIVE, sources close to Ramaphosa revealed what made matters worse was the “tone” of the meetings with US President Donald Trump's administration.
Typical of the DA, it had assumed the big brother role, thinking it could somehow clean up South Africa’s image in the eyes of Trump and save the day. But it has backfired royally.
At the centre of Whitfield's removal is whether the deputy minister received approval from his boss to undertake this trip. According to the DA and leader John Steenhuisen, Ramaphosa was apprised by Whitfield of his travels. Those close to Ramaphosa, however, say the president had clearly stated his disapproval. In other words, he was defied. If this argument is taken to its logical conclusion, the issue is why should Ramaphosa be saddled with someone who openly disrespects him. This is valid.
In law, and our public officials must always be guided by the law, the validity of the president's action will be sustainable to the extent of its consistency. Put differently, where Ramaphosa shows tolerance for other misdemeanours by other members of the executive, questions ought to be asked why Whitfield is treated differently, even if his actions are not to be countenanced.
Not too long ago, Ramaphosa chose to move Thembi Simelane sideways instead of sacking her when it emerged that she had been complicit in the VBS scandal. Instead of giving her the axe, Ramaphosa chose to reward her with the human settlements ministry, moving her from the justice department.
Not too far away from his office lies his deputy, Paul Mashatile, who has faced one scandal after another. Just last week, it was reported that Mashatile’s sister in-law would benefit from the multibillion-rand Lotto tender. Why is Ramaphosa's resoluteness with flagrant violations by Whitfield not shown to his own comrades?
In the end, to many South Africans, this is much of a muchness
In the end, to many South Africans, this is much of a muchness.
In the absence of a rational explanation, speculation has been rife that Ramaphosa may have fired Whitfield as part of a stratagem to appease some radicals in his party who are still baying for the DA's blood after the party's rejection of the budget.
The ANC has not been able to hold its national executive committee meetings since the fallout over the budget. Ramaphosa had said then that an adversary should not be distracted while making a strategic error while his deputy Mashatile said, effectively, the DA ministers should not be allowed to implement a budget they had not voted for.
Unless there is more to the story that the Presidency has not yet shared with the country, this decision was merely to appease the ANC. Many may argue, and rightfully so, that Ramaphosa has displayed yet again that the ANC is more important than the country.
DA leader John Steenhuisen said as much when he addressed parliament on Thursday. To Steenhuisen, Whitfield is removed at a time when Ramaphosa is faced with a more pressing matter of Nkabane, a fellow comrade, who had perjured herself in parliament. Ramaphosa has decided to remain mum in the face of a clear violation of Nkabane’s constitutional obligations.
Steenhuisen said: “Given this flagrant double standard, one is left with no choice but to conclude that hardworking DA members of the executive are now being fired for fighting corruption, not for committing corruption. For being good at their jobs, rather than being incompetent. If this situation is not urgently corrected, it will go down as the greatest political mistake in modern South African history,” Steenhuisen said in parliament.
The DA has, once again, threatened to leave the GNU and has given Ramaphosa a 48-hour deadline to rescind his decision or fire ANC leaders in cabinet who had run-in with the law or ethical breaches.
The president's actions may not be enough for the DA to redefine its role in the GNU. Whitfield is not the hill the DA will or must die on.
Ramaphosa's decision to act against a member of the executive from the DA while leaving his comrades out of the fire can only mean that the president is fixated on the coming NEC meeting rather than removing from the executive those who don't belong.
For almost three months, the ANC’s officials have failed to convene an NEC, fearing that the radicals within the party would call for the dissolution of the GNU.
Until the president explains the reasons behind his actions, his omissions will fuel speculation that there is more self-interest behind the latest move rather than accountability. It's time to speak, Mr President.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.