Did Tony Leon and Resolve break any laws, and what happens next?

For nearly 40 minutes, John Steenhuisen’s interview with News24 on Sunday was about one thing: betrayal.

The former Democratic Alliance leader spoke about broken promises, being forced out as agriculture minister and what he saw as a party abandoning one of its own.

Then, he mentioned something almost in passing.

Steenhuisen noted that Tony Leon’s communications and public affairs firm, Resolve Communications, had been approaching him on behalf of private clients seeking meetings and policy changes while simultaneously helping to drive a public campaign against him over Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD).

He also said that other DA ministers who had been approached by Resolve included Minister of Communications and Technology, Solly Malatsi, who was contacted to meet with their clients about Starlink.

Asked whether he thought that was ethical, he responded:

“I don’t know,” he replied. “You’d have to look at the rules around it.”

What was remarkable was the fact that he didn’t realise what a bombshell this would be. That it was dropped almost casually… an unholy alliance between politics and corporate interests, with money directing the conversation rather than what was best for South Africa.

Public response, especially on social media, erupted: if one of the DA’s most influential former leaders is lobbying DA ministers for paying clients, isn’t this exactly the kind of blurred line between politics and private interests that the party has spent decades attacking the ANC for?

The ethical problem

What Resolve Communications does is lobbying, and, surprisingly, it is not illegal, and it isn’t strictly governed in South Africa as it is in the US, where companies often hire firms to help them understand policy, meet with officials, and argue for changes.

The concern is access. If a former party leader can use old political relationships to get paying clients in front of ministers, the public is entitled to ask: is everyone getting a fair hearing, or only those who can afford the right connections?

That does not mean Leon or Resolve broke the law. Steenhuisen has not provided proof of corruption. But the allegations raise a classic “two hats” problem: former public figure on one side, private clients on the other. Tricky. Messy. Very South African.

How different is this from the US?

In the US, lobbying is not banned, but it is far more visible. Federal lobbyists generally have to register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act and file regular reports with the House and Senate. Those reports disclose broad lobbying activities and spending. The Senate’s lobbying database includes registrations, quarterly activity reports and contribution reports.

There is also the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which requires people acting for foreign principals in certain political or public relations work to disclose those relationships, activities, receipts and spending to the US Department of Justice.

Is the US system perfect? Absolutely not. Money still shouts, and Washington has turned lobbying into an Olympic sport. But the key difference is this: Americans can at least search public databases to see who is lobbying, for whom, and roughly how much money is involved.

South Africans cannot do that. There is no equivalent national lobbying register here. No routine disclosure of lobbyist clients. No standard publication of lobbying meetings with ministers. No easy way to see who is trying to shape policy from behind the curtain.

That is why Steenhuisen’s allegations land so awkwardly. The problem is not only what may have happened. It is that the public has almost no tools to check.

Does South Africa’s law have anything to say on the matter?

While South Africa does not have a dedicated Lobbying Act, other laws still matter.

The Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (PRECCA) is South Africa’s main anti-corruption law.

It does not prohibit lobbying but does criminalise corruption that may arise from irregular lobbying.

In simple terms, the law makes it an offence to offer or receive a benefit in exchange for someone improperly exercising their public duties.

That means arranging a meeting with a minister is not, by itself, unlawful.

The legal line would only be crossed if investigators could show that payments, favours or other benefits were exchanged to secure an improper government decision. No such allegation has been made against Leon or Resolve.

The Executive Ethics Code is also relevant. It doesn’t regulate Tony Leon, but it does regulate ministers.

The code says members of the executive may not use their office to improperly benefit another person or act in a way that compromises the integrity of government.

In other words, if a minister gave preferential treatment because of personal or political relationships rather than the merits of a request, that could raise ethical questions under the code, and the minister could face penalties.

Whether that happened here has not been established.

So what could happen now? Could anyone investigate?

Potentially, yes.

If someone believed corruption had occurred, they could lay a criminal complaint with the South African Police Service. Depending on the evidence, that could ultimately be investigated by the Hawks.

If the concern relates to the conduct of ministers rather than lobbyists, a complaint could be made to the Public Protector under the Executive Members’ Ethics Act.

Parliament could also decide to revisit the broader question of lobbying regulation, something governance experts have called for over many years.

What is Resolve and why are they controversial?

Resolve is a strategic communications and public affairs firm. Its senior leadership includes Leon as executive chairperson and former DA CEO Paul Boughey as its CEO. That political experience is part of its value to clients, and exactly why critics worry about privileged access.

This is not the first time Resolve has found itself under political scrutiny.

During Cape Town’s drought crisis in 2018, the municipality appointed Resolve to assist with communications around ‘Day Zero’.

Critics questioned whether a DA-led municipality should award work to a firm chaired by the party’s former leader. Resolve maintained there was a clear separation between its government communications work and its corporate advisory business.

While none of its controversies demonstrates wrongdoing, together they illustrate why firms employing former senior politicians often attract closer public scrutiny than ordinary communications agencies.

Why it matters

Steenhuisen may have been focused on the DA drama, but he’s inadvertently highlighted a major public issue: South Africans still cannot easily see who is lobbying the government, for whom, and with what level of access. For a country this divided, financially backed access to power is deeply problematic.

When /explain/ reached out to Resolve Communications and Tony Leon for comment, we were directed to a statement on the company’s website.

“Our principals’ past affiliations are publicly known, openly acknowledged and entirely proper

“We engage with all parties and across government strictly on the merits of the issues our clients raise,” the statement read.

The statement added that Resolve is considering legal action against individuals who have alleged that the company acted improperly or unlawfully.

Leon did not respond to requests for comment at the time of publication, but his response will be added here when received.