President Cyril Ramaphosa has responded to DA leader John Steenhuisen's ultimatum, defending his decision to axe Andrew Whitfield. (Photo: Gallo Images / Luba Lesolle) 
President Cyril Ramaphosa has responded to DA leader John Steenhuisen’s 48-hour ultimatum, defending his decision to axe DA Deputy Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition Andrew Whitfield as constitutionally sound and based on a “clear violation” of the rules governing members of the executive.
“Mr Whitfield was removed as a deputy minister because he undertook an international visit without the permission of the president.
“His travel to the United States was a clear violation of the rules and established practices governing the conduct of members of the Executive. This requirement is known to all ministers and deputy ministers. These rules and established practices were expressly communicated to all members of the Executive during the induction sessions at the commencement of the seventh administration,” President Ramaphosa said in a strongly worded statement on Friday, 27 June 2025.
“These rules and practices were repeated in the Cabinet in March this year by me as president. All international travel by members of the executive must always be undertaken with the express permission of the president.
“This practice is rigorously observed and adhered to by all members of the Executive. However, Mr Whitfield deliberately chose to violate this rule and practice,” he continued.
Read more: Who will blink first in game of chicken between DA and ANC? Steenhuisen or Ramaphosa?
Ramaphosa removed Whitfield from his position on Wednesday, providing no reason for his dismissal. His spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, confirmed Whitfield’s axing on Thursday, but maintained that the move was not part of a “wholesale Cabinet reshuffle”.
Whitfield’s removal, it later emerged, was apparently due to an “unauthorised” trip he took to the US for the DA in February this year.
I am amazed at Mr Steenhuisen’s intemperate reaction to the removal of Mr Whitfield. He knows very well that the blatant disregard of the rules and practices that govern the international travel of members of the executive is a serious violation that should not be permitted.
In a raging response to Ramaphosa on Thursday, Steenhuisen gave the president an “ultimatum” to clean house of the ANC ministers and deputy ministers implicated in corruption within 48 hours or face “grave consequences”.
He questioned whether there was “something deeper at play” in the president’s decision to fire Whitfield several months after the alleged breach of conduct.
The DA’s Federal Executive met on Thursday afternoon to discuss the matter.
The party is expected to hold a press conference on Saturday afternoon, 28 June, on the way forward for the DA and the Government of National Unity (GNU).
In his statement, Ramaphosa noted “it is not common practice” for the president to provide reasons either for the appointment or dismissal of members of his executive.
“However, due to several unfortunate statements and outright distortions by a number of people, especially Mr John Steenhuisen and Mr Whitfield himself, it is necessary for me to make a public statement on the circumstances surrounding Mr Whitfield’s removal,” he said.
Ramaphosa slammed Steenhuisen for his ultimatum and threats of consequences.
“It is unprecedented in the history of our democracy that the exercise by the president of his constitutional prerogative and responsibility with respect to a clear violation of rules and established practices governing the conduct of members of the Executive, has met with such irresponsible and unjustifiable threats and ultimatums from a member of the Executive.
“Let it be clear that the president shall not yield to threats and ultimatums, especially coming from members of the Executive that he has the prerogative to appoint in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,” he said.
A replacement for Whitfield
Ramaphosa revealed that, in conversation with Steenhuisen on Wednesday, in which he alerted him to his intentions to remove Whitfield, he had requested that Steenhuisen provide him with a replacement for Whitfield.
“Prior to the removal of Mr Whitfield, I informed Minister John Steenhuisen as the leader of the Democratic Alliance that I had decided to remove Mr Whitfield from his position as deputy minister, and that I expect him to present to me for approval a replacement for Mr Whitfield from his party as the DA is entitled to a deputy minister, as agreed.
“In that discussion, Mr Steenhuisen informed me that Mr Whitfield had been expecting that he may be dismissed on the grounds that he had undertaken an international trip without the president’s permission.
“This expectation, along with a perfunctory letter of apology that Mr Whitfield wrote to me following his travel to the US without the required permission, indicated that he was aware that his actions had violated the rules and established practices governing the conduct of members of the Executive,” said Ramaphosa.
Read more: Steenhuisen’s leadership stability threatened by internal dynamics and Zille’s Joburg aspirations
Ramaphosa claimed that Steenhuisen had asked whether there was any precedent for the action he intended to take against Whitfield.
“I informed him that there was indeed prior precedent.
“I told him that in 1995, (then) president Nelson Mandela dismissed the late deputy minister (Winnie) Madikizela-Mandela, and that in 2007 (then) president Thabo Mbeki dismissed then deputy minister Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge on the grounds of undertaking international travel without permission,” he said.
“Given all these circumstances there is consequently no reasonable grounds for Mr Steenhuisen and the Democratic Alliance to issue ultimatums and threats when the president exercises his constitutional prerogative and responsibility. Nor are there any grounds to try to link this with matters that have no bearing on the conduct of the former deputy minister.”
In his speech, Steenhuisen had suggested that Whitfield had “opposed an attempt to make suspect appointments; he was standing in the way of the looting that will follow from the Transformation Fund — and all of this in a department mired in corruption allegations involving the tender for the National Lottery”.
Whitfield himself, however, on Radio 702 on Thursday, downplayed his involvement in questioning the tender for the National Lottery linked to Deputy President Paul Mashatile.
Ramaphosa reiterated that there “is really no basis for suggestions” that Whitfield’s dismissal is related “to any other reason than his failure to receive permission to travel and adhere to the rules”.
“I am amazed at Mr Steenhuisen’s intemperate reaction to the removal of Mr Whitfield. He knows very well that the blatant disregard of the rules and practices that govern the international travel of members of the executive is a serious violation that should not be permitted,” he added. DM