There appears to be not a single district or constituency where the DA is not engaged in covering up corruption or misbehaviour of some kind.

And there is also no place where they appear to be keen to hold any of their members to account, who are only investigated when they are certain to be cleared of all charges. They have consistently promoted or laterally transferred their members accused of crimes of corruption, and consistently ensured that they escape official investigation. This includes Memory Booysen, Eleanor Bouw-Spies, Conrad Poole, Albert de Klerk, and of course, Malusi Booi, whose arrest came after four years of the party's awareness of his involvement with the gangs.

And recently, three districts have demonstrated this pattern of behaviour in detail.

‍

George

Recently, Deputy Mayor Raybin Figland managed to squeak away without any reprimand from a sex-for-jobs scandal that has dragged on for several years. In April 2022, a young woman of schoolgoing age and her father, reported that Figland sent the woman explicit personal images and sexual messages on WhatsApp. The matter was reported to the DA leadership structures within days. Nothing happened for 18 months.

On 10 October 2023, the matter was reported to Rapport journalist Bohemia Hoffmeester-Jumatt, who published the story on 15 October. The DA dismissed the story with contempt. But within 14 days of the publication, an FLC delegation arrived in George to investigate the matter. The disciplinary had been concluded on 24 June, yet Figland is still, 27 months after the scandal broke, the deputy executive mayor of George, even despite the man’s widespread reputation as an informer for the PA.

Now, he has been cleared by a an internal DA investigation. Party spokesman Willie Aucamp released a neat little statement to the following effect:

"The DA took the allegations in this matter extremely seriously. The DA Federal Legal Commission conducted a detailed and thorough investigation, over six months, under the leadership of an experienced attorney, to establish any verifiable evidence to substantiate the allegations. Despite repeated efforts, the key witness in the case refused to testify, and without her evidence it was impossible for the panel to convict Cllr Figland in the matter. It was, however, factually established that the young woman involved was over the age of 18 at the time the alleged incident occurred, ruling out allegations of criminal liability."

Ah, how tidy.

Of course, the "six months" quoted here is nothing - the public waited nearly three years for anything to happen at all, and the party's promise to deploy Figland to parliament remained throughout. It is only due to the relentless badgering from communications practitioner Ike Boss that anything got done to begin with, and of course, Figland's colleagues at George Council resolved not to proceed against him in the first place.

‍

Swellendam and the VF+

Meanwhile, the DA are trying to smear VF+ Swellendam council speaker Juan van Schalkwyk in the papers for daring to challenge the DA on their attempt to bribe an ANC councillor to step down (among other issues).

Mayor Francois du Rand narrowly escaped a no-confidence motion from his own party over service delivery issues. The motion was withdrawn after a phone call from DA leader Helen Zille. But this may have backfired, as the council has now agreed to investigate du Rand on several counts.

The Freedom Front Plus (VF+), with whom the DA is in coalition, holds the Speaker's chair, under Juan van Schalkwyk. van Schalkwyk has been subject to pressure from the DA and their representatives' local social network to resign. VF+ spokesperson Wouter Wessels acknowledged the complaints but dismissed them as an attempted smear.

The big reason for these smears, which are almost entirely relating to issues of personal likeability, is that van Schalkwyk has insisted on oversight and accountability above issues of factional loyalty. He drew a lot of ire for his concerns about the alleged bribery attempt on a local ANC councillor. Van Schalkwyk also voted alongside the ANC for the suspension of municipal manager Anneleen Vorster. Vorster’s suspension stemmed from alleged misconduct, a charge the DA dismissed as a ruse.

ANC councillor Donovan Julius claimed DA members had offered him R1.5 million to resign, which would trigger a by-election the DA hopes to win, thus preserving its control. The DA categorically denied the accusations, of course, but the bribery pressure had already come up in a meeting last year in October. Julius's bribe allegedly involved higher-ups like Jaco Londt, and he was allegedly not simply offered cash, but places for his children at exclusive local schools, among other strangely well-connected perks.

In response, the DA and FF+ leaders convened for crisis talks, although similar coalition rifts have emerged in other Western Cape municipalities, including Oudtshoorn and Langeberg. This broader tension with the VF+ also comes from the VF+ attempting to hold the DA to account, and the response has been an unrelenting torrent of bile, dishonesty and hostility, after the DA announced they would kick the VF+ out of the province for ousting a corrupt mayor who was dealing with the ANC behind his coalition partners' backs.

As Swellendam’s council grapples with these multifaceted disputes, Speaker Van Schalkwyk defended his controversial decisions, stating that he simply adhered to his legislative obligations. He attributed the outcry to DA’s politicization of routine processes, calling it an attempt to avoid transparency. He contended that the DA's strong reaction to his lawful actions raised questions about what the party might be trying to conceal. He suggested that his neutral role in council as the tie-breaking vote represents a hindrance to a party more concerned with power than with integrity.

But the main contention arises from the fact that van Schalkwyk began his tenure by continuing the tradition of having an opposition member occupy the position of financial oversight, in this case, an ANC member. The DA, who were happy filling this role when the ANC were in charge, were all of a sudden outraged by this customary exercise of checks and balances.

Start as you mean to go on, I suppose.

‍

Garden Route

Perhaps the breadth of this accusation is not credible to you, being that you are a loyal DA voter, used to comparing the DA to the ANC, rather than to the VF+, who actually deal with corruption in their ranks rather than covering it up. But if you want to understand them best, you should take a look at Plet, where the party was happy to railroad their own speaker and spaff R3 million in legal fees to get rid of him (failing of course), all because he tried to get leaders to deal with corruption. We covered this story in depth here. The saga rambles on after 13 years still.

The nature of internal discussions are best understood when internal communications are leaked. At the end of last month, an old email from the 1st of February this year popped up, sent by Hilton Stroebel, the local DA Caucus Chair, to Hellen Zille and Jaco Londt. It was fairly long (four pages), and detailed a great deal of consternation with the lack of accountability within the party. Specifically, Stroebel raised concerns over governance issues within the Garden Route District Municipality (GRDM) under Mayor Memory Booysen.

Firstly, that the Federal Legal Commission (FLC) had recommended the suspension of GRDM Municipal Manager Mondè Stratu, yet Mayor Booysen has delayed its execution. Booysen cited awaiting guidance from the Governance Unit, despite evidence that he had the necessary documents.

Secondly, allegations of financial misconduct against the Municipal Manager and two senior officials were tabled, but Booysen only asked the Council to "note" them without following legal protocols for investigation. Regulations require the accused be given a chance to respond before suspension, a step Booysen skipped.

Furthermore, a waiver of R2.4 million for the Municipal Manager was approved in a closed session. Stroebel criticized the Speaker’s decision to keep the matter private, arguing it was against party transparency standards.

Then there is the interesting case of Councillor Rayno April, who opposed a motion of no confidence against Booysen, and was subsequently appointed to a committee chair position without party approval, raising concerns of a quid pro quo.

In his email, Stroebel requested that the FedEx consider suspending Booysen from party activities for misconduct and to uphold DA governance standards.

What happened instead, is that Booysen was promoted to the Western Cape Provincial Parliament. Similar such cases include Conrad Poole and Eleanor Bouw-Spies.

Why does Helen Zille and Jaco Londt insist on promoting people they know to be corrupt?

There a few possible explanations here, but none of them are flattering: a) they find it too tedious to go through the motions, b) they don’t consider corruption to be objectionable, c) they are involved in the corruption, or d) they find the corruption useful for having control over the individual they are protecting.

‍