The questions the DA and Steenhuisen won’t answer over the Dion George ministerial saga

“Unfortunately we are not going to respond. Sorry for that.”

This was the response of Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen’s department spokesperson, Joylene van Wyk, to six detailed questions sent by Daily Maverick on 26 November regarding Steenhuisen’s trade engagements with the Chinese government.

The reason for the questions: claims doing the rounds within the DA over Steenhuisen’s alleged increasing chumminess with China, which has prompted speculation whether his relationship with the world’s largest market for abalone and lion bone could have something to do with the unexplained decision to axe Dion George as environment minister.

This speculation is heightened by the claim that Steenhuisen’s first attempt to axe George was at an unscheduled DA Federal Executive (FedEx) meeting unexpectedly called on 15 October, when Steenhuisen was in China.

Records on the Department of Agriculture website show that on 15 October Steenhuisen was in Shanghai, signing a stone fruit trade agreement and addressing the 2nd Conference on the Import and Export Food Safety Cooperation Mechanism of the Belt and Road Initiative.

In the statement on the trade agreement, Steenhuisen waxed lyrical about the “tangible results of Chinese investment” in “the upgrading of South Africa’s railways, ports and highways”.

He “encouraged trading partners to make use of the world-class Shanghai Freight Services network to leverage its extensive global logistics network for both sea and air freight, ensuring faster and more reliable delivery of South African agricultural exports to China”.

This, of course, was Government of National Unity (GNU) business, not the DA’s, and Steenhuisen was representing the South African government’s view of the relationship with China rather than the DA’s — with the party having historically been far more sceptical of Chinese involvement in South Africa.

But it is inevitable that, if accurate, an attempt to convince the DA’s FedEx to remove George — who was enhancing protections against the trafficking of abalone and lion bone — while Steenhuisen was in China, will raise eyebrows. And it should.

The questions sent by Daily Maverick to Steenhuisen’s department were a legitimate attempt to establish the nature and frequency of Steenhuisen’s travel to China and activities there since he became minister of agriculture.

If there is nothing to hide, why not answer them?

Lack of transparency extending to DA

As was made clear, the inquiries above were directed to Steenhuisen in his capacity as a GNU minister rather than as DA leader, although these lines inevitably blur.

But it was the DA, as a party, which was called upon by the National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) to provide reasons for the appointment of Willie Aucamp to replace George as environment minister.

The NSPCA wrote to the DA in late November to request the DA’s “reasons, process and safeguards relied on” in selecting Aucamp, who has been accused of having an uncomfortable proximity to hunting and wildlife breeding industries, and whose parliamentary disclosures show that he has a stake in a mining contracting company.

The DA refused to give the reasons.

In a statement on 28 November, the NSPCA said that the DA’s lawyers had sent a brief letter back saying that their client “has considered the request and has decided not to provide the reasons, criteria, or documentation referred to in [the NSPCA’s] letter”.

Instead, for the NSPCA to find out the reasons for the appointment, it has to submit a Promotion of Access to Information Act (Paia) request — which can take months and is a mechanism that organisations like Outa have complained is ineffective and abused by government entities.

It is hard to understand what the DA is doing here.

When Daily Maverick asked federal executive chair Helen Zille why the DA decided not to give the reasons requested by NSPCA, she responded: “According to our lawyers, the NSPCA has no right to request reasons in a letter. If the NSPCA brings a PAIA request or litigation, they may or may not be entitled to reasons.”

This is the same party that went to court on multiple occasions during the Zuma administration to demand that reasons be given for Cabinet reshuffles. The issue reached the Constitutional Court in 2019, with the court ruling that the matter had become moot due to the change of administration.

When the judgment was handed down, the DA released a statement saying:

“The DA believes that every exercise of public power must be subject to the principles of legality and rationality, especially the exercise of all of the President’s powers, which include decisions to appoint or dismiss Ministers and Deputy Ministers. In the absence of a rational explanation, the President’s decision to reshuffle his Cabinet would be unlawful.”

It continued:

“The DA has long held that a President’s decision to reshuffle his/her Cabinet must be rational and cannot merely be on the basis of discretion alone, as this is often just an excuse to appoint individuals who serve for their own personal gain rather than the best interests of our country.”

Zille told Daily Maverick that “the context between the two situations is entirely different”, because the NSPCA has not launched a legal challenge.

But the fact remains that the DA under Steenhuisen has been given its first opportunity in terms of Cabinet reshuffles to demonstrate higher standards of transparency and accountability than ANC leaders — yet seems intent on failing the test. DM