Pressure mounts for DA leader to justify firing of Environment Minister Dion George

South Africa’s leading animal welfare authority has demanded answers of both the Presidency and the DA, requesting proof that newly appointed Environment Minister Willie Aucamp is not compromised by undisclosed interests in the country’s most controversial wildlife industries.

At the top of the NSPCA’s list of hard questions posed by the association’s lawyers is one that goes to the heart of constitutional ethics: Has Aucamp submitted, or will he submit within 60 days, his mandatory Executive Ethics Code financial-interest disclosure – and will he dispose of, or place under independent control, any interest that creates a conflict of interest, as required by clause 3.6 of the code?

The second question cuts even deeper: What conflict-of-interest assessment was conducted regarding Aucamp’s reported links with wildlife-breeding or captive-wildlife industry actors – industries currently engaged in multiple legal battles with the government – and what remedial steps were proposed?

And finally, the NSPCA wants to know: What reasons and criteria did the DA rely on when nominating Aucamp and how do these choices advance effective environmental governance under section 24 of the Constitution, which – per the Constitutional Court – includes the protection of animal sentience and animal welfare?

These questions, now formally put to both President Cyril Ramaphosa and DA leaders John Steenhuisen and Helen Zille through its attorneys, probe the legitimacy of one of the most consequential Cabinet reshuffles in recent years: the abrupt removal of Minister Dion George and the installation of a minister whose political allies allegedly include some of the most powerful actors in South Africa’s wildlife exploitation economy.

In addition to the questions being asked about the lack of clear reasons given by Steenhuisen for George’s dismissal, Steenhuisen is also facing internal heat following the publication of a Daily Maverick investigation which revealed that the DA leader had a default judgment issued against him for unpaid credit card debt in May this year and also had his party credit card suspended, allegedly because the account could not be reconciled.

Meanwhile, George says he intends to sue Media24 for defamation for carrying out what he describes as a smear campaign.

“I am going to be suing all of the people responsible for the smear campaign, because it is very clear where the campaign has been coming from,” he said.

George did not provide further details, but Daily Maverick understands that he is also likely to be targeting Steenhuisen in the defamation action.

The source of George’s litigation appears to be an article published by News24 on 17 October carrying a raft of allegations against George, including sexual misconduct, from anonymous sources

NSPCA: we need answers

Speaking to Daily Maverick about the letters to the DA and the President, NSPCA spokesperson Jacques Peacock was clear: this is not a dispute over political preference – it is about the legal ability of the country’s statutory animal welfare body to perform its duties effectively.

“As the statutory body for animal welfare, we need confirmation of how conflict of interest will be avoided,” Peacock said.

Aucamp’s official Parliamentary ownership declarations list no wildlife-related business interests, yet is Facebook posts list a close association with wildlife farming and hunting associations. This contradiction, according to the NSPCA letters, underscores why transparent disclosure and independent verification are urgently required.

Steenhuisen’s office was approached for clarification but his spokesperson, Charity Ophelia, said that “there will be no comment from Mr Steenhuisen”. A WhatsApp message to Aucamp went unanswered. Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said that, because of the pressure of the G20, he could only comment “next week”.

A request for documents

The NSPCA’s letters to the Presidency and the DA request a suite of documents and reasons that would normally be routine in a transparent democracy, but which remain conspicuously absent in this case. Among the items demanded are:

• The document that outlines why George was removed or stepped down;
• The DA’s written recommendation nominating Aucamp;
• Any vetting, integrity screening or conflict-of-interest assessments conducted;
• Recusal protocols for matters relating to captive-bred wildlife, wildlife breeding, hunting and ranching; and
• Confirmation of Aucamp’s compliance with Executive Ethics Code disclosures.

Both letters emphasise that the values of openness, accountability and transparent decision-making – enshrined in sections 1(d), 195 and 24 of the Constitution – require these reasons to be provided voluntarily, not only through formal access-to-information processes.

Shockwaves

The backdrop to this challenge is laid out in an EMS Foundation report, True Colours – The Axing of Minister Dion George, which argues that George’s removal was not about “underperformance”, as officially claimed, but rather a deliberate political manoeuvre benefiting wildlife breeding, trophy hunting and game-ranching lobbies long opposed to environmental reforms.

During his tenure, George:

• Pushed forward with shutting down the captive lion industry;
• Set the lion bone export quota at zero for 2025;
• Opposed reopening international trade in rhino horn and ivory;
• Declined to set elephant, black-rhino and leopard hunting quotas due to ongoing litigation;
• Defended animal wellbeing clauses in biodiversity legislation; and
• Filed a notice of appeal against a Kimberley High Court ruling enabling export of rhino horn from captive-breeding facilities.

These policy positions placed him directly in the path of sectors that have spent years fighting reforms aimed at reducing wildlife commodification. According to the EMS Foundation, George did not simply fall, “it was a political execution”.

Aucamp’s installation

The EMS report documents frequent and increasingly public engagements between DA leadership and wildlife-exploitation sector bodies throughout 2025. Steenhuisen, as agriculture minister, openly aligned himself with wildlife ranching interests, standing beside Wildlife Ranching SA CEO Richard York at HuntEx and declaring: “Hunting is conservation.”

Aucamp, meanwhile, developed visible proximity to high-value game breeders, including figures connected to predator-breeding operations. DA representatives attended the annual meeting of the Sustainable Use Coalition of South Africa (SUCo-SA) – not in their personal capacities, but explicitly as party officials.

By late 2025, the report states, what began as “proximity” had become “alignment”, and what became alignment “soon looked like capture”.

Against this backdrop, said Peacock, George’s removal and Aucamp’s appointment raise pressing questions:

• Will Aucamp withdraw the state’s appeal in the rhino horn case?;
• Will he restore the lion bone export quota?;
• Will he revive the captive lion industry?; and
• Will protections for animal wellbeing in environmental law be retained?

These are not theoretical concerns: multiple legal cases brought by wildlife industry groups are under way and the minister’s stance could determine the outcomes.

Peacock confirmed that several major court matters now possibly hang in the balance, including:

• The SA Hunters case seeking to remove animal wellbeing clauses from biodiversity law;
• The South African Predators Association case attempting to force reinstatement of the lion bone quota; and
• The rhino-horn export case, currently under appeal by the State.

A crisis of legitimacy

The EMS Foundation warns that the new appointment creates “a perfect storm of an ideologically compromised Minister within a Department that has a long history of one-sided engagement with extractive industries”.

This, combined with the perceived closeness between DA leadership and wildlife exploitation interests, places South Africa at risk of “massive reputational damage”, the report says.

It also notes the deeply troubling possibility – already raised by civil society organisations – that Aucamp’s appointment may meet the definition of a “perceived conflict of interest” under the Public Service Commission Act, and perhaps even corruption if decisions favour private interests from which the minister or his associates benefit.

Test of national integrity

The EMS Foundation’s conclusion is stark: the removal of George “may have been a political execution, but the fight for the soul of South African conservation is only beginning”.

The NSPCA echoes the urgency, framing its letters not as political interventions but as essential steps to safeguard constitutional principles and the effective enforcement of environmental law.

“There has been no public statement by the DA as to why they think Aucamp is the suitable candidate from an environmental point of view, as far as we are aware. These concerns are not in the public domain.”

The NSPCA’s questions now stand as a test of integrity for both the President and the DA:

• Will they disclose the vetting and reasoning behind Aucamp’s appointment?;
• Will the public learn whether the new minister has conflicts of interest?; and
• Will environmental governance remain grounded in constitutional duty – or shift towards the interests of private wildlife exploitation industries?

A senior member of the DA’s leadership, speaking to Daily Maverick’s Rebecca Davis on condition of anonymity this week, said it was possible that Steenhuisen could face a charge of bringing the party into disrepute. DM