Dion George reports DA leader John Steenhuisen to public protector as lion-hunting row explodes

Axed former environment minister Dion George has taken the extraordinary step of reporting his own party leader, John Steenhuisen, to the public protector, as an internal fight in the DA spills into full public view.

In a detailed and often emotional 84-page affidavit to Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka, George accuses Steenhuisen of abusing his power as DA leader, agriculture minister and Government of National Unity (GNU) negotiator to pursue narrow political and commercial interests – and of pushing him out of cabinet on a false pretext to make way for Willie Aucamp.

George claims Aucamp and his family benefit from the lucrative lion-hunting and wildlife ranching industry, and that this creates serious conflicts of interest in the environment portfolio. His affidavit is accompanied by photographs of Aucamp family members with lion cubs.

The complaint marks a dramatic escalation in a feud between two men who were once close allies. For weeks, leaked accusations about Steenhuisen’s alleged misuse of a party credit card, and untested claims that George sexually harassed and mistreated ministerial staff, have shredded the image of order, discipline and decorum the DA relies on as it presents itself as a stable alternative to the ANC.

Tit-for-tat complaints before key DA congress

George’s move comes barely a week after Aucamp himself laid a complaint with the public protector. According to media reports, Aucamp accused George of abusing state resources and fabricating a whistleblower report to trigger a departmental investigation into him.

The cross-complaints land just months before a crucial DA elective leadership congress in April, where Steenhuisen is seeking a third term as party leader. It is not yet clear whether George, who serves as the DA’s federal finance chair, will stand again for his post.

In his affidavit, George paints a picture of a party leader overreaching his authority and blurring the lines between party politics, cabinet governance and sector interests.

He alleges that Steenhuisen:

• Unlawfully interfered with the mandate of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) and with George’s role as minister by instructing him to meet captive-lion breeders and by holding his own meetings with them;
• Suggested that “captive wildlife” should fall under the Department of Agriculture – the portfolio Steenhuisen holds;
• Recommended Aucamp for appointment as environment minister because of his links to the captive breeding and wildlife ranching industry; and
• Removed him as a minister who was acting independently and impartially, and replaced him with someone who suited Steenhuisen’s personal political objectives.

George also asks the public protector to investigate Aucamp for:

• An alleged failure to disclose personal commercial interests and conflicts of interest;
• The withdrawal of a South African proposal at the CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) conference late last year to tighten rules on abalone (perlemoen) trade; and
• Failing to renew the mandate of a ministerial task team, appointed by former minister Barbara Creecy, to implement the phase-out of the lion-breeding industry.

Aucamp denies any links to canned lion hunting, but the level of detail in George’s complaint, and the inclusion of internal party communications, threatens to further damage the DA’s public image.

George: ‘Abuse of power’ and ‘tantamount to cadre deployment’

In his submission, George accuses Steenhuisen of conflating his roles as DA leader, agriculture minister and GNU negotiator for cabinet posts.

“Minister Steenhuisen is abusing his power as DA leader and as GNU negotiator to advance his own political agenda, which serves his own interests and not those of the DA, [or] more importantly, the people of South Africa as a whole,” George says in his affidavit.

He continues:

“This abuse of power includes an encroachment into other ministerial departments to dilute their independence and objectivity and to advance singular commercial interests [that] carry significant risk to South Africa’s natural heritage and to our reputation as a country.”

George charges that Steenhuisen’s:

“direct attack on the independence of ministerial roles in stand-alone departments is tantamount to cadre deployment. It is further a concerted effort to purge the DA of Steenhuisen objectors, while undermining the constitution.”

According to George, Steenhuisen’s alleged interference intensified after the DFFE confirmed in October last year that South Africa remained committed to CITES bans on commercial trade in rhino horn and ivory.

George says he met with captive-lion breeders to make it clear that captive lion breeding would be phased out. He claims that Steenhuisen then “demanded” that he co-operate with the breeders and pushed him to hold further meetings, which George describes as “highly inappropriate”.

“To meet alone with and to co-operate alone with the captive breeders would have isolated large swathes of affected parties, who would have found the meeting inappropriate and a conflict.”

Steenhuisen hits back: ‘Flimsy fabrications’ and ‘uncollegial’

Asked to respond, Steenhuisen dismissed George’s affidavit in strong terms, calling the claims:

“flimsy fabrications, a gross misunderstanding of mandates and yet another attempt to seek revenge for his removal from executive office”.

He denies interfering with George’s ministerial duties and says he merely passed on a request from a member of the Wildlife Ranching Association of South Africa for a meeting about ongoing legal disputes with the department over hunting quotas for certain protected species.

“It was expressed to me that they were looking for an amicable way to deal with the impasse that would avoid lengthy delays and legal costs.”

Steenhuisen argues that wildlife ranching was declared an agricultural activity in 1996 in terms of the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act, and therefore:

the issue fell “directly under my departmental mandate and legislative responsibility”.

In his version, it is George who overstepped:

It was George, Steenhuisen said, who was exceeding his mandate by making decisions on wildlife ranching and the production of agricultural products without consultation with the ministry of agriculture. “This I found uncollegial and unhelpful given the fact that we were colleagues from the same party.

On Aucamp’s interests, Steenhuisen says:

“I am aware [Aucamp] has a publicly declared interest in a game farm, but that is no reason to exclude him from executive office. It would be as ridiculous as saying that a farmer couldn’t be agriculture minister, a doctor couldn’t be health minister or a lawyer cannot be justice minister. If any conflicts of interest arise, these would be dealt with in terms of the established cabinet practices.”

He insists that as party leader he has a duty to ensure the DA operates at:

“maximum potential”

and that there is nothing unusual about reshuffling executive positions.

Aucamp defends himself on lions, abalone and task team

Aucamp acknowledges that he and his family are involved in game farming, but he firmly denies any involvement in captive lion breeding.

He says George’s allegations:

“are untrue and fabricated,”

and adds:

“I encourage anyone with [such] information to come forward.”

On the withdrawal of the abalone proposal at the CITES conference, Aucamp says this followed a cabinet directive that more time was needed for public comment, rather than any personal interest.

Regarding the ministerial task team on captive lion breeding, he explains that its mandate ended on 30 November last year, and that he actually granted the three-week extension the team requested so it could finalise its report.

DA keeps quiet as internal legal probe continues

DA spokesperson Jan de Villiers said the party’s federal legal commission, which was appointed in November to investigate the dispute between Steenhuisen and George, has not yet completed its work.

He said the DA would not comment further until the investigation has been concluded and considered by the party’s Federal Executive.

For now, the public protector will have to sift through conflicting versions from three senior DA figures – in a case that lays bare not only a clash over lion breeding and wildlife policy, but also deep internal divisions ahead of a make-or-break congress for South Africa’s main opposition party.

Follow Us on Twitter