The spat between Action South Africa (ASA) and the Democratic Alliance (DA) has been growing more intense as the days roll on.

The biggest part of the recent friction is the metropolitan government of Tshwane, where ASA responded to a DA-ANC plan to oust the DA's coalition partners in Tshwane in exchange for supporting an ANC government in Ekurhuleni, where the ANC have been in tension with their partners the EFF. The ANC were not interested in the DA's deal, and chose instead to make a deal with ASA to remove the DA mayor Cilliers Brink from office through a motion of no confidence.

But not satisfied with having taken revenge and booting the DA's mayor from government, ASA has told the ANC that they will overturn this deal if they don't get the mayoralty.

Several aspects of the party's behaviour have become increasingly petty - this week, ASA has also claimed that any attempt to abbreviate their name is the result of an "apartheid legacy" of denying people their identity, after critics on social media used the shorter "ASA" to save space on their posts on X, which limits each post to 280 characters. They would be the only political party in the country not referred to by an acronym.

In addition to the contrarian behaviour mentioned already, ASA have decided to defend the right of a corrupt former judge to sit on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), which reviews and selects judicial candidates.

The DA had just won one of its first major political victories in several years, after their case against impeached judge John Hlophe, deputy president of the MK Party (MKP), succeeded in having him barred from participating in JSC activities pending a judicial review of his appointment to the body by the National Assembly. The Western Cape High Court delivered its judgment following an application by the DA along with the civil society groups, Freedom Under Law and Corruption Watch.

Hlophe’s impeachment stemmed from a 2008 incident in which he was found guilty of attempting to influence two Constitutional Court judges to rule in favour of Jacob Zuma in a high-profile arms deal case. His subsequent removal followed a protracted legal battle. The DA argued that it was fundamentally irrational for Hlophe—the first judge in democratic South Africa to be impeached—to serve on the JSC, the body responsible for interviewing judicial candidates and disciplining members of the judiciary.

However, just months later, Hlophe was sworn in as a Member of Parliament for the MKP, a move that raised eyebrows, given that he was shuffled into the party list after the election, along with others who displaced several original MK MPs, leading to legal challenges.

While much of civil society and the public support Hlophe's recusal, ASA plans to refer the John Hlophe matter to Parliament’s Constitutional Review Committee, arguing that the interdict barring his appointment to the JSC highlights a pressing need for constitutional reform.

ActionSA sees this case as a constitutional anomaly: while his election to Parliament ostensibly validates his competence to represent South Africans, his suitability for the JSC—a body to which Parliament itself appoints members—has been challenged. The interdict suggests a misalignment in the standards for these two roles.

ActionSA argues that if Hlophe is considered fit to serve as the Leader of the Official Opposition, in the very legislature responsible for shaping the nation’s laws, it begs the question of why he would be deemed unfit for the JSC or any other parliamentary committee. This perceived inconsistency, they argue, undermines both the integrity of Parliament and the JSC, and points to the need for a more coherent application of eligibility standards across public institutions.

To address this, ActionSA intends to push for a review of relevant legislation, rules, and frameworks. By bringing the matter before the Constitutional Review Committee, the party seeks to eliminate this contradiction and ensure that criteria for holding public office are consistent, transparent, and aligned with the principles of both Parliament and the judicial oversight body.

However to many, this appears to be a lack of concern for clean governance, and has generated a substantial degree of confusion and disapproval.

‍