When one of your chief criticisms of the ANC revolves around tenderpreneurs, state capture, BEE distortion and crony capitalists, you have to tread carefully in your own party. Which is why the recent reshuffle of environmental oversight within the DA-influenced portfolios deserves more than a cursory shrug.
When cabinet changes make you wonder whether the incoming minister might feel more at home at a game auction than a policy briefing, it’s worth taking a closer look. When John Steenhuisen, newly empowered at agriculture, supports a shift in the environment portfolio towards someone seen as markedly friendlier to “sustainable use”, it raises legitimate questions — not allegations — about the policy direction being signalled. It looks less like routine governance and more like a rewriting of the rules of engagement.
For years a controversial wildlife economy segment has survived on a familiar pattern: breed lions in captivity, sell hunts advertised as “wild”, and export bones under the banner of “conservation”. It is an industry widely criticised by NGOs, researchers and even former ministers. So when the outgoing minister — removed, officially, for performance reasons — set the lion bone export quota at zero, conservationists applauded. Predictably, parts of the predator-breeding sector were less enthusiastic.
This is where the overlap of portfolios matters. Agriculture and environment are not discrete silos. They intersect on land use, wildlife permitting, quotas and the economics of game farming. When both levers are held by leaders known for strong sympathies towards hunting and game-farming interests, it is reasonable, indeed responsible, to scrutinise how environmental policy may shift. The public is entitled to ask questions.
Removing a minister who tightened oversight over captive breeding and replacing him with one connected to the wildlife-trade lobby inevitably triggers debate. That debate is healthy. After all, balanced service requires clarity, especially given that official DA policy affirms shutting down the captive-lion industry altogether. If practice diverges from principle, who benefits? That is not an accusation; it is a civic question.
When reshuffles appear, even inadvertently, to align with the interests of industries known for operating in the policy shadows, public trust requires reassurance.
NGOs and investigators have long argued that the captive breeding industry can mask animal welfare concerns and enable illicit networks. These claims have shaped international opinion, tourism sentiment and policy recommendations. When regulatory signals soften, the risk is that problematic actors may exploit the ambiguity.
That is where transparency becomes essential. When reshuffles appear, even inadvertently, to align with the interests of industries known for operating in the policy shadows, public trust requires reassurance. When new political configurations seem unexpectedly favourable to the gun-and-giggle safari fraternity, the electorate notices and reasonably expects explanations rooted in evidence, not placeholders.
This is why now is the moment for clarity rather than controversy. Trace the ownership of major predator-breeding operations. Review donation disclosures. Examine meeting logs. Follow the evolution of quota decisions. These are not insinuations; they are the routine tools of democratic oversight. If such scrutiny reveals that decisions were made entirely on policy merit, so much the better; sunlight protects everyone.
Modernising agriculture and supporting rural livelihoods is required. But modernisation without transparency risks becoming a smokescreen that obscures how public resources — land, biodiversity, ecosystems — are governed. SA does not need ministers who appear to treat the environment as an extension of private wildlife economies. It needs ministers who treat it as a national trust.
If the government wants trust, it must earn it. Disclose thoroughly. Explain openly. Demonstrate alignment between policy, practice and principle. A simple place to start would be for ministers Willie Aucamp and Steenhuisen to proactively resubmit and clarify their parliamentary declarations of interest, affirming their commitment to transparent governance.
After that, the public can connect the dots, or not, on the basis of facts, not suspicions.
• Cachalia, a businessperson and management consultant, is a former DA MP and public enterprises spokesperson, and a former chair of De Beers Namibia.
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.