/file/dailymaverick/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/label-Opinion.jpg)
South Africa has sadly become accustomed to ethical and transparency controversies surrounding those in public office. What remains far more troubling, however, is not just the allegations themselves, but the silence and the absence of decisive leadership that so often follows.
The recent exposure in Rebecca Davis' Daily Maverick investigation involving Social Development Minister Sisisi Tolashe and her family members’ receipt and use of two luxury vehicles is a case in point.
At the heart of this issue lies a simple question: why the lack of transparency and hesitancy by Tolashe and President Cyril Ramaphosa?
The allegations are now well into the public domain and have been for a week. On top of that, they are neither vague nor trivial. They relate to assets of significant value, reportedly associated with the minister or her immediate family. In such circumstances, the expectation is of an immediate, clear and detailed disclosure.
Yet, the minister’s responses to date have been minimal, confusing and misleading.
Tolashe is in possession of the facts. She knows whether or not the vehicles were received in the name of the ANC Women’s League (ANCWL). Her explanation differs significantly from that of management within the ANCWL. The minister must surely know who paid for these vehicles and in whose name they are registered. Most certainly, she should know whether she declared these assets or the use thereof, in accordance with parliamentary and executive ethics rules.
This is not a complex forensic exercise requiring months of investigation. It is information that should have been provided within days, not only to the media or parliamentary enquiries, but directly to the President — her immediate boss — to spare him the questions that must surely be flowing his way.
Instead, the country and its citizenry, to whom she is accountable, have been kept in the dark.
Tolashe’s silence only deepens suspicion and creates the impression of concealment, whether justified or not. Her actions and the conflicting statements certainly undermine public confidence in a government already battling a severe credibility deficit.
But the issue does not end with the minister — it extends directly to Ramaphosa’s lack of action.
Given the seriousness of these allegations, it is entirely reasonable to expect that the President would have acted swiftly and decisively. A matter of this magnitude warrants immediate executive attention and, at the very least, the President should have required a written explanation from the minister within days of the story breaking, followed by a formal engagement with her, to interrogate the facts.
Standard governance practice
Civil society’s expectations in this regard are not extraordinary. It is standard governance practice that one expects of a President, especially on the back of far more rapid and decisive action taken in cases involving far less serious allegations. The dismissal of Deputy Minister Andrew Whitfield in June last year over procedural issues relating to international travel approval is a stark example. If such matters justify swift sanction, then surely allegations involving undeclared luxury assets that are potentially linked to private interests demand even greater urgency.
Yet, in this case, there has been no visible intervention. No public indication that the President has demanded answers. The lack of urgency makes this inconsistency even more problematic and reinforces a growing perception that accountability within the executive is applied unevenly — swiftly in some cases, cautiously or not at all in others. And in a country where public trust in government is already fragile, such perceptions are damaging.
But there is another dimension to this matter which rests squarely with the minister herself: Why has she not acted proactively?
Why has she not written to the President, ahead of any request by him, to set out a full account of the facts? And if she has, why has she not taken the public into her confidence by providing a clear and transparent explanation through the media and in answers to questions posed by MPs in Parliament?
In doing so, she would not only be discharging her ethical obligations but also relieving the President of the burden of having to extract this information under pressure.
Leadership is not only about responding when called upon. It is about stepping forward voluntarily when questions arise. In the absence of such actions, the vacuum is filled by speculation, suspicion and reputational damage.
Ultimately, while the question of criminality may yet be determined through investigation, this matter is fundamentally about ethics and transparency. It is about whether public office-bearers understand that they are custodians of public trust, and that this trust is eroded not only by wrongdoing, but also by opacity and delay.
It is also about whether the President is willing and able to enforce consistent standards of accountability across his executive, especially those within his political party.
In addition, it is about whether this government appreciates the scale of the trust deficit it faces, and the urgency with which it must act to close it. Every day of silence widens that gap, and transparency is delayed, accountability denied.
In South Africa today, this inaction and conduct cannot be afforded. Unless Tolashe provides a plausible explanation very soon, the President should act swiftly and relieve her of her position and ensure that she doesn’t surface again in another well-paid position in the government. DM