Steenhuisen accepted a poisoned chalice in 2024
In a letter published in these pages in July 2024, I suggested that by accepting President Cyril Ramaphosa’s invitation to become South Africa’s agriculture minister, John Steenhuisen was picking up a poisoned chalice. As it happens, that prediction was indeed prescient, and he is likely to leave that particular office under something of a cloud.
It is highly unlikely, therefore, that a significant number of DA supporters are “furious” — as reported by some media — that Geordin Hill-Lewis, the party’s new federal leader, has proposed that Steenhuisen be replaced.
When joining Ramaphosa’s mishmash GNU cabinet, Steenhuisen not only found himself associated with a raft of incompetent ministerial colleagues whose values, principles and policies were vastly different from those of the political party he led; he also inherited from former minister Thoko Didiza a department that was underperforming, underresourced and with allegations of corruption and mismanagement of funds.
Steenhuisen declared that he found that about R500m was missing from the department’s finances. Didiza claimed the matter had already been investigated. The auditor-general was involved and asked for further investigation, and Steenhuisen himself demanded a forensic investigation.
Strangely, even on his watch, nothing further has been heard, no reports or explanation has been forthcoming, and no-one has been held accountable. The matter has disappeared off the radar screen.
Ironically, those funds were supposed to be for the upgrade of the once world-renowned veterinary institute, Onderstepoort, and its ability to produce vaccines for our agricultural industry.
The foot-and-mouth disease debacle is not directly of Steenhuisen’s making but that of the governmental department he so readily agreed to lead, and he seems to have been beholden to the ANC’s “state must control” philosophy in his stance about the crisis. Sadly, under those sort of circumstances his image and reputation inevitably become badly tarnished and rightly or wrongly have a negative impact on the DA
He was also conflicted between showing respect for, loyalty to and unity with the president and all his cabinet colleagues or publicly calling them out when their policies and decisions were clearly in conflict with those of the DA. He strayed towards the former, and the DA’s voice became thus muted.
Hill-Lewis has proposed a team that will have a much stronger collective grip on and influence over the GNU and should diminish the ANC’s dominance in “affairs of state”. One can only hope that our prevaricating president will “apply his mind” and get this team on board sooner rather than later.
David Gant
Kenilworth
Israel won’t ignore self-defence, MOU or not
James Cunningham seems to think that because the US memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Iran included a ceasefire in Lebanon, and because the so-called peace agreement may fail if it is violated, Israel (a nonparty to the MOU) should give up its right to self-defence against a relentless enemy (“US-Iran peace deal leaves Israel isolated and tensions high in the Middle East“, June 23).
According to that theory, if Israel commits itself to that absurd suicidal path, the sunny uplands of peace in the Middle East will be reached, where a religio-fascist, death-exporting terror cult state becomes a peace-loving partner with the West and its Sunni neighbours.
There is an alternate (far more likely) theory: Iran is pushing its luck with a weak president for a one-way ceasefire and using Lebanon as the first of many excuses to drag out negotiations to collect the cash and rearm.
Israel should throw in the towel, according to Cunningham, because Israel’s economy is in a “disastrous state”. But that’s far from true: the shekel is at its strongest level yet, GDP growth is forecast at 4% for 2026, inflation is less than 2% and per capita income is $70,000 (higher than every European country) in a $700bn economy.
Israel has become the most successful state yet, despite having to spend an average of 8%-10% of its GDP on defence since its establishment in 1948 because of the continuous attacks from armies and terrorists on all sides, so it is hardly likely to let its enemies run wild, “primary requirement of the MOU” or not.
Sydney Kaye
Cape Town
City of Joburg wage deal could head to the courts
With the ongoing debate and condemnation by the national government of the Johannesburg municipal wage-increase agreement, it will be interesting to see whether the trade union movement in the municipality goes to the Labour Court to enforce it.
The minister of finance has clearly stated the agreement is illegal and unsustainable. However, in another judgment, the Independent Electoral Commission vs the CCMA and Nehawu, the court ruled that once an employer confirms and agrees to a wage increase with an implementation date, that agreement cannot be abandoned unless both parties agree.
In that case, the court found that the IEC’s refusal to implement the changes constituted an unfair labour practice. Furthermore, the court categorically stated that financial constraints cannot be used as an argument to justify the cancellation thereof.
We wait to see how this unsustainable agreement will pan out.
Michael Bagraim, MP
DA employment & labour spokesperson
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businessday.co.za. Letters of more than 200 words may be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
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.