The DA’s Internal Conflict and the Resolve Communications Controversy

What Sparked the Feud?

Former Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen ignited a public showdown when he accused the party’s own communications firm, Resolve Communications, of using its close ties to DA officials to gain unfair advantages. He claimed the firm helped arrange meetings between DA ministers working in the Government of National Unity (GNU) and private‑sector clients, including Elon Musk’s Starlink.

Steenhuisen’s Specific Claims

Lobbying and Influence

Steenhuisen said Resolve, chaired by Tony Leon and led by former DA boss Paul Boughey, acted as a bridge for ministers to meet with corporate clients. He argued that this proximity gave the firm undue sway over government decisions.

Foot‑and‑Mouth Disease Narrative

He also alleged that a lobby group linked to Resolve, called FMD Response SA, played a key role in shaping how the public perceived the government’s handling of a foot‑and‑mouth disease outbreak.

Impact on His Position

According to Steenhuisen, these activities contributed to his removal as agriculture minister after DA leader Geordin Hill‑Lewis reportedly asked President Cyril Ramaphosa to replace him with Willie Aucamp.

Tony Leon’s Rebuttal

Denial of Wrongdoing

Tony Leon, executive chairman of Resolve Communications, dismissed the allegations as baseless. He stressed that no evidence supports the claim that his firm exerted undue political influence.

State Capture Comparison

Leon rejected comparisons to state capture, calling the analogy false and offensive. He defined state capture as a secret, criminal subversion of public institutions for private gain, which he said is the opposite of Resolve’s open lobbying work.

Business Practices

Leon maintained that Resolve cannot force ministers to change decisions. He noted that if a meeting request is denied, the firm respects that outcome without complaint.

Reactions from Other Political Players

ANC’s Response

The African National Congress (ANC) labelled the accusations as possible evidence of state capture and urged an independent investigation into Resolve’s dealings with DA officials.

ActionSA’s Involvement

ActionSA entered the debate, demanding that President Ramaphosa launch an urgent probe. MP Lerato Ngobeni said the party would submit parliamentary questions to every DA minister and deputy minister in the GNU about their interactions with Resolve Communications.

Minister Dion George’s Experience

Environment Minister Dion George told the Sunday Times that Resolve contacted him on behalf of waste‑management company Redisa while Redisa was litigating against his department. George said he repeatedly declined the meetings and admitted he had no direct proof that Resolve caused negative media coverage against him, though he “put two and two together.”

Leon’s Counter‑Arguments

Lack of Evidence

Leon pointed out that critics like George admitted they had no evidence, calling such accusations baseless.

Past Similar Claims

He noted that similar allegations surfaced during internal DA disputes in 2019, involving a supposed meeting with former Johannesburg mayor Herman Mashaba over a R300‑million proposal. No charges followed, and Leon said the claim is being recycled without new proof.

Potential Legal Action

Leon confirmed that Resolve Communications is considering legal steps against those spreading what he believes are false and harmful claims.

Calls for Investigation

Despite the lack of concrete proof, pressure is mounting for formal oversight. The ANC, ActionSA, and several GNU ministers are pushing for parliamentary and presidential scrutiny of Resolve Communications’ interactions with DA ministers and government officials.

Conclusion

The clash between Steenhuisen and Leon highlights deep fissures within the DA and raises broader questions about lobbying, transparency, and accountability in South African politics. While Leon insists his firm operates within legal bounds and denies any influence‑peddling, the allegations have prompted opposition parties and government figures to demand investigations. Until concrete evidence emerges, the debate will likely continue to fuel discussions about the role of private consultancies in public affairs and the safeguards needed to prevent any perception of undue influence.