PRETORIA – The Democratic Alliance (DA) is facing intense political scrutiny following allegations of undue influence within the Government of National Unity (GNU) involving party leader John Steenhuisen, former leader Tony Leon, and the public affairs firm Resolve Communications. The controversy has sparked debates over whether private entities are leveraging improper access to members of the executive, drawing sharp comparisons to the era of state capture.
ActionSA spokesperson Lerato Ngobeni confirmed that the party has launched multiple formal processes to ensure state transparency. ActionSA has written to the Speaker of the National Assembly, the President, and the chairpersons of all parliamentary portfolio committees overseeing departments led by DA ministers. Ngobeni emphasized a stark difference between standard lobbying and undue influence, noting that the party is not interested in GNU political infighting but rather in ensuring the executive ethics code is adhered to.
“We have seen this playbook before with state capture, and we are saying we should be equipped to curb these issues before they take root,” Ngobeni stated. ActionSA expects accountability and full disclosure from the presidency, parliament, and the Public Protector.
The African National Congress (ANC) has also raised serious concerns, with ANC Member of Parliament Cameron Dugmore arguing that no one should be above scrutiny. Dugmore highlighted Tony Leon’s influential role in the GNU negotiations—noting his involvement in the election assessment committee that preceded the removal of former leader Mmusi Maimane—and pointed out that one of Resolve Communications’ clients is Elon Musk’s Starlink.
Furthermore, the ANC has approached the Public Protector and the Public Service Commission to investigate the matter. Dugmore also pointed to alleged irregularities in the Western Cape, claiming that Resolve ran the “Day Zero” drought campaign through a subcontract during the city’s water crisis. He called for full disclosure of meetings involving Leon and Steenhuisen, and criticized the perceived arrogance of DA leadership. Dugmore specifically referenced former Premier Helen Zille’s alleged dismissal of a Promotion of Access to Information (PAIA) application regarding DA deployees in Western Cape municipalities, and highlighted unresolved corruption allegations involving property developers and local municipal officials.
Political analyst Professor Siphamandla Zondi noted that the timing of the controversy is particularly damaging for the DA, which has recently faced a string of setbacks. These include losing its clean audit status in the City of Cape Town and losing a landmark Constitutional Court case regarding spatial planning to undo apartheid structures.
According to Zondi, the allegations strike at the core of the DA’s 18-year political strategy, which has been built on a message of efficiency and clean governance. “The last thing it wants is to find itself embroiled in a credible set of information that suggests it may be facilitating a potentially corrupt relationship between itself in government and companies associated with its leaders,” Zondi explained.
Zondi warned that the party’s slow and muted response, coupled with an attitude that lobbying is entirely normal, could accelerate a broader slide in public trust toward political institutions. “With power comes responsibility… the arrogance we’ve seen from the party is quite unfortunate. They should have just come clean,” he added, noting that lobbying historically carries the hallmarks of corruption when it provides special access to certain groups.
While the DA has previously defended the activities as standard lobbying, critics argue that the integration of former political leaders into private businesses to leverage government access carries the marks of unethical behavior. The DA was invited to participate in the broadcast discussion regarding these allegations but declined the interview. As investigations potentially unfold, the pressure remains on the GNU’s second-largest party to address the claims and clarify the boundaries between legitimate public affairs work and improper state influence.
