The Resolve controversy is about more than Tony Leon: it’s a test of DA accountability

Former DA leader John Steenhuisen’s demotion in the GNU was always going to cause trouble for his party, given the strong support he has within its ranks. But his decision to expose some of what allegedly happened before his demotion is trouble no one could have anticipated.

President Cyril Ramaphosa removed Steenhuisen as agriculture minister in late June and appointed him deputy minister of trade, industry and competition. The DA’s new leader, Geordin Hill-Lewis, requested these changes.

In a News24 interview published on 28 June, Steenhuisen accused Hill-Lewis (who became the DA’s Federal Leader in April this year and is also the mayor of Cape Town) of breaking a promise to keep him in the agriculture portfolio. That interview produced another major bombshell when Steenhuisen claimed that Resolve Communications, a public relations and public affairs firm chaired by another former DA leader, Tony Leon, had been approaching DA ministers to meet with its clients.

Since then, the story has grown from an internal DA tussle into a broader debate about lobbying, political access and whether the DA, which presents itself as a non-corrupt alternative to the ANC, is guilty of hypocrisy.

What is Resolve accused of doing?

Resolve describes itself as a communications and public affairs company whose team includes public policy advisers, lawyers, journalists and former parliamentarians. Public affairs work commonly involves helping clients understand the government, communicate their positions and broker meetings with officials.

Lobbying is a well-established practice that’s hardly unique to South Africa. Here and elsewhere, ministers and MPs regularly meet businesses, unions, advocacy groups, academics and community organisations; these interactions can help drive strong, sensible policy decisions.

The important questions in this case are whether Resolve’s clients received privileged access because of Leon’s relationships and networks within the DA, whether those relationships were disclosed, and whether public representatives were encouraged to advance private commercial interests.

In his News24 interview, Steenhuisen said Resolve had approached DA ministers on behalf of clients, including Elon Musk’s satellite internet company, Starlink. Parliament’s communications committee later asked Communications and Digital Technologies Minister Solly Malatsi to explain reported engagements involving Resolve and Starlink. The committee stressed that the allegations remained untested but said they raised concerns about private interests influencing policy, regulation and executive decisions.

Malatsi has denied any wrongdoing and said he has met with various Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite providers, including Starlink.

Starlink is seeking access to the South African market and its regulatory position is a legitimate subject for government engagement. But the public should know who arranged the meeting, who the intermediary represented, what was discussed and whether the engagement affected any policy decision.

What do we know about Resolve’s conduct?

News24 reported that Resolve’s current Chief Operating Officer, Loftus Marais, offered to draft parliamentary questions that DA MP Toby Chance could put to Trade, Industry and Competition Minister Parks Tau. The questions related to issues affecting electric steel producers represented by the firm. Leon has argued that there was nothing unethical, illegal or improper about the offer.

MPs receive proposed questions and policy information from many outside groups. Constituents, researchers and civil society organisations routinely draw Parliament’s attention to issues. But parliamentary questions are not simply emails with fancier stationery. They are official oversight tools used to force ministers to provide information and account for government decisions.

Allowing a private lobbyist to help shape those questions may not be unlawful, but it creates a potential conflict between public oversight and a paying client’s interests. That concern becomes more serious when the client’s involvement is not disclosed.

Former forestry, fisheries and environment minister Dion George said Resolve had tried to arrange meetings between him and clients. However, George also accused Steenhuisen of encouraging him to meet some of the same interest groups.

The Daily Maverick has examined the relationship between Resolve and DA MP Kabelo Kgobisa-Ngcaba, who was the company’s chief operating officer before entering Parliament. The article questioned whether issues she later raised as an MP overlapped with Resolve clients’ interests. She left the company before taking office, and no wrongdoing has been established.

Moving from a private company into Parliament is not improper. The concern is what governance experts call the “revolving door”: people moving between organisations seeking to influence government and the institutions making the decisions. That movement requires transparency because previous relationships do not necessarily disappear when somebody changes jobs.

Lobbying safeguards are lacking

Leon’s central defence is straightforward: Resolve is paid to represent clients, arrange engagements and advocate for those clients’ positions. Officials are free to decline meetings, and the firm cannot force ministers to make particular decisions.

He has denied that Resolve sought to control ministers and has described comparisons with state capture as unfair. That defence answers one question: has anyone proved that Resolve coerced an official or secured an unlawful decision? The answer is no. But it does not answer the broader question of whether South Africa has sufficient safeguards around lobbying.

An OECD review found that South Africa does not regulate interactions between lobbyists and public officials, has no public lobbying register, and generally does not require officials to disclose these engagements. It also identified the absence of a mandatory cooling-off period for senior officials moving into related work in the private sector. Therefore, “Nothing illegal has been proved” is not the same as “the system is working properly”.

Can the DA refuse to investigate?

The DA says it hasn’t been presented with evidence of misconduct by its public representatives and, consequently, it will not be investigating the matter. Former DA MP Phumzile van Damme echoed the sentiments of many when she wrote “SMH (Shaking My Head)” on X in response to the party’s announcement that it would not launch an internal probe.

There are two problems with the DA’s stance: first, while Resolve is a private company which the DA cannot investigate, the party should be willing to examine its own representatives’ conduct. The second is that the DA has repeatedly demanded investigations into allegations involving its political rivals; its refusal to ensure its own house is in order risks making its calls to hold other parties’ members to account seem rather hypocritical.

What next for Leon and Steenhuisen?

Leon remains an influential figure within the party he led from 1994 to 2007 and was involved in the DA’s negotiations to enter the GNU. This controversy may limit his public role, but political analyst Dr Levy Ndou told /explain/ that parties often continue to rely on former leaders for advice and election campaigning.

“I think Steenhuisen feels very aggrieved by how he was treated by the party, particularly how its leader Geordin Hill-Lewis reneged on his promise that Steenhuisen would remain agriculture minister if he did not stand for re-election at the party’s elective conference earlier this year,” Ndou said.

What can we conclude?

This is a major political test for a party that prides itself on clean governance. Resolve, and DA representatives may not have acted improperly. Steenhuisen’s claims may prove exaggerated or be driven, at least in part, by resentment. But we won’t know for sure until the evidence is thoroughly examined.

There’s also a broader issue at play. Without proper safeguards, South Africa’s political system appears to allow private influence to operate too easily in the dark. It’s time to switch on the light.

Prashalan Govender is a journalist who was shortlisted for the Vodacom Young Journalist of the Year Award twice. He is focused on reporting the stories that shape everyday life in South Africa, with a particular interest in politics, economics, and social issues.