The DA continued to hog the political limelight on Tuesday, with analysts and some of its former leaders querying the party’s lack of transparency in the way it handles its finances.
A document compiled by former federal head of finance Dion George, leaked to Business Day over the weekend, revealed the party was paying more than R300,000 a month to a number of its senior officials seconded to parliament, national government and local authorities.
George was dismissed from the cabinet, where he led the environment ministry, by President Cyril Ramaphosa. He later resigned from the party after a run-in with party leader John Steenhuisen.
The beneficiaries of the “top-up” include Steenhuisen; deputy finance minister Ashor Sarupen; uMngeni mayor Christopher Pappas; former Tshwane mayor Cilliers Brink; Matthew Cuthbert, MP and DA head of policy; Werner Horn, National Assembly house chairperson and deputy national campaign manager; and chief whip George Michalakis.
The DA has defended the monthly payments, saying they were internal political allowances. Citing the case of the R50,000 monthly payment to Sarupen, the party said it was an allowance “linked to political office as deputy federal council chair responsible for national campaign management” and not remuneration for outside employment.
It said the most recent disclosure period for members of the executive covered April 1 2024 to March 31 2025, and that the allowances only commenced after that period, meaning they will be declared in the next reporting cycle.
The party added that the payments are governed by its federal finance, fundraising and procurement policy.
But scrutiny has intensified over whether the arrangements comply with constitutional and ethics rules governing members of the executive.
ActionSA has lodged a complaint with the public protector in terms of the Executive Members’ Ethics Act, alleging a prima facie breach of section 96(2)(a) of the constitution.
While the DA maintains the payments are internal allowances, ActionSA argues they are “contractual, ongoing and remunerative in nature” and tied to defined party functions, including campaign management.
It contends that this places them within the scope of “other paid work” prohibited by the constitution and has called for an investigation into potential conflicts of interest and compliance with disclosure requirements.
Proper disclosure
Under the parliamentary code of ethical conduct, members must declare all registrable interests annually, including remunerated work and financial benefits. The Executive Members’ Ethics Act similarly requires disclosure of financial interests and prohibits remuneration for work outside official duties.
Section 96(2) of the constitution provides that members of the cabinet and deputy ministers may not undertake any other paid work or expose themselves to conflicts between their official responsibilities and private interests.
Posting on X on Tuesday, former DA MP Phumzile Van Damme questioned whether such payments had been properly disclosed.
“All remunerated work outside of parliament must be declared in the Register of Members’ Interests. An additional salary for a specific job or role, even if party-related, is considered a financial interest,” she said.
In a separate post on X, former DA KwaZulu-Natal leader Mbali Ntuli criticised what she described as inconsistent application of party rules.
“That’s not the problem; it’s the inconsistency of application. I took a pay cut to run the entire province as PD and lost over R400,000 in my MPL payout for stepping out to do it for the party when nobody else would,” she said.
“I took it on the chin because I cared about the country and KZN, but you can’t say helping to produce the DA’s highest results as PD didn’t merit a top-up.”
Ntuli said she had “no skin in the game” in the current matter but argued that non-transparent application of rules creates internal inequities.
“This is what happens when rules are applied in a non-transparent way and with no consistency. I am the only MPL that didn’t get my full package when I left and didn’t get compensated by the party for it… and yes, I did ask because I knew of top-ups in the party then already,” she said.
She added that similar roles had not been treated uniformly, saying it remained unclear which office-bearers qualify for such payments.
This is what happens when rules are applied in a non-transparent way and with no consistency.
— Mbali Ntuli, former DA KwaZulu-Natal leader
Ntuli also pointed to what she described as inconsistencies in enforcement, referencing DA MP Karabo Khakhau, who withdrew from the party’s federal council leadership race after failing to obtain a letter of good financial standing over a disputed “tithe” payment.
Khakhau has maintained that she settled the amount and did not owe the party.
Ntuli further alleged that similar rules had not been applied consistently in previous leadership contests.
She claimed that a leadership contender she ran against — now DA leader John Steenhuisen — had allegedly failed to meet tithe obligations over a number of years but was still permitted to stand.
The DA has not publicly responded to that specific allegation.
Analyst Sanusha Naidoo said the matter exposed a regulatory grey area where party roles intersect with state responsibilities.
“There is a broader question around whether if you are earning a government salary you can then also earn another income stream,” she said, adding that the issue raises further concerns around disclosure, taxation and the ability of office-bearers to fulfil their official responsibilities.
Under South Africa’s tax framework, allowances, salaries and benefits are generally treated as taxable remuneration and must be declared as part of an individual’s gross income. Where payments are fixed, recurring and not directly linked to reimbursing actual expenses, they are typically classified as income and reflected on an IRP5 certificate.
Naidoo said this adds a further layer of complexity.
“If it is treated as income for tax purposes, then the question arises as to how it is being declared and recorded,” she said.
SA Revenue Service guidance indicates that payments labelled as allowances remain taxable unless they meet strict reimbursement criteria and must be disclosed in annual tax returns. Classification is determined by the substance of the payment rather than its label.
Naidoo said the intersection of constitutional rules, ethics obligations and tax compliance is likely to be central to any assessment. “It brings together questions of legality, disclosure and tax compliance,” she said.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.