DA deputy Department of Trade Industry and Commerce minister Andrew Whitfield, whose sacking has not been explained by President Ramaphosa. (Photo: Gallo Images / Die Burger / Lulama Zenzile) 
There are many reasons why Whitfield’s sacking is so politically potent.
Among the most important is that Ramaphosa’s explanation, that he “was removed as a deputy minister because he undertook an international visit without the permission of the president” does not make sense.
For a start, that trip was several months ago.
What happened between then and now that took the president so long to act? If it is such a clear sacking offense, then why not act immediately? And if there was some reason for a delay, what was it about yesterday’s specific date that then allowed him to act?
The president says in his statement that: “It is not common practice for the President of the Republic of South Africa to provide reasons either for the appointment or the dismissal of Members of the Executive.”
Legally, there is no obligation for a president to give reasons for hirings and firings. But that does not make it democratic. Or morally correct. Or even politically wise.
The president is not a god, or an absolute ruler or a king. He is accountable to the people. For him to follow the precedents of previous presidents who have also not given reasons, particularly Jacob Zuma and Thabo Mbeki, may not be wise.
Both were recalled by the ANC. And while their stories are very different, both had fired someone under strange circumstances that they refused to explain, until the real reasons became obvious later.
It is true, as Ramaphosa points to, that Mbeki fired Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge as deputy health minister in 2007, ostensibly because she travelled without permission.
It is also true that it followed her being in a dispute with the health minister at the time, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, about the causes of HIV/Aids.
‘I’ll fix you’
Tshabalala-Msimang’s comment to Madlala-Routledge, that “I’ll fix you” was surely a bigger factor than her recent travel.
In the case of Zuma, he fired Nhlanhla Nene as finance minister one night in 2015, and refused to explain why.
You may well remember how that ended.
The other, fairly obvious point, is that nothing stopped the Presidency from announcing the reason for Whitfield’s sacking yesterday.
What changed between the public statement confirming he had been removed and Friday? Why could he make public the reason on Friday, but not on Thursday?
Then of course there is Whitfield’s public claim that he did ask the Presidency for permission to go on this trip, and was ignored. While that may be through a simple mistake, Whitfield says he followed up every day for nine days.
While Ramaphosa may feel he does not have to respond to every request from a deputy minister, it certainly gives the appearance of being incredibly rude to not reply.
It may well be politically unwise for the president to stick to this claim, when it appears irrational. It gives the appearance that there is another uncomfortable political fact that he is trying to hide.
It must surely be that Ramaphosa fired Whitfield for some reason of which he is ashamed. Or something he’d prefer to keep hidden.
This is why this issue is unlikely to disappear quickly.
For the moment, the most likely real reason is that there is a faction in the ANC demanding Ramaphosa act against the DA. Or its members.
But even that is problematic.
Because the message that this may send to many voters is that Ramaphosa is prepared to act against a DA member for internal ANC reasons, but not against ANC ministers who have done much worse things than Whitfield.
It does not appear to make sense to act against Whitfield while allowing Nobuhle Nkabane to remain as higher education minister when it is clear she lied about her “independent panel” to advise her appointing chairpersons to the Sector Education and Training Authorities.
And, as DA leader John Steenhuisen was quick to point out, why fire Whitfield when Ramaphosa has kept David Mahlobo as deputy minister at Water Affairs when there is clear evidence he walked out of the State Security Agency with huge amounts of cash during the State Capture era?
Internal ANC politics
If this is about internal ANC politics it may also be another demonstration that ANC leaders are more focused on internal factions than on winning votes.
This must be one of the big lessons from this. That the ANC is still not focused on winning back the support it has lost. This may well be because many of its decision-makers are much more comfortable dealing with internal dynamics. They are doing what they know, what they have always done — rather than focusing on the hard work of actually governing well enough to win votes.
Meanwhile, the DA’s leadership has some difficult decisions to make.
Steenhuisen’s threat that Ramaphosa has “48 hours” to act against ANC ministers may well demonstrate the difficulty of his position.
As former strategist Ryan Coetzee and others have pointed out, the DA simply cannot accept having its members fired without any consultation.
Even though the president has confirmed the DA will get to replace Whitfield with another of its members, this effectively gives the ANC a vet on DA appointments.
This they surely cannot accept.
The Freedom Front Plus or the Patriotic Alliance would not accept it either.
The problem for Steenhuisen, of course, is what to do now.
To leave the coalition is fraught with danger. That said, his constituency might well reward him for it.
Some in the ANC might celebrate the DA’s departure at first, but might then find that governance becomes virtually impossible.
But any decisions made by the ANC or the DA might well be based on longer-term calculations, about whether voters will punish or reward them for pulling out of the coalition.
And thus this may not be the last strange and deliberately unexplained event. DM