What the Tony Leon fight reveals about SA’s lobbying blind spot

Former DA leader and outgoing agriculture minister John Steenhuisen is seemingly tired of being the only person in hot water. Over the weekend, he turned his fire on former party leader Tony Leon’s communications and public affairs firm, Resolve Communications.

In doing so, Steenhuisen has dragged the DA and Leon into an uncomfortable debate about influence, transparency, and accountability. Opposition parties are latching on to the controversy and demanding an investigation. They argue that, contrary to the image the DA has long sought to cultivate, it is no less susceptible to allegations of patronage and corruption than its political rivals.

Leon, who serves as an executive chairman for Resolve Communications, has since hit back at any insinuation that he or his firm has acted unethically or unlawfully. He has also expressed a willingness to pursue legal action against his critics.

“Where these falsehoods cross into defamation, we are considering our legal remedies,” Leon said in a statement.

ICYMI, here’s a very quick catch-up

Steenhuisen gave a wide-ranging interview to News24, which was published on 28 June. Just hours after the article and video interview went live, their content spread like wildfire.

In the interview, Steenhuisen discussed his demotion from minister of agriculture to deputy minister of trade, industry, and competition by DA party leader and former ally, Geordin Hill-Lewis, among other issues.

But the biggest bombshell was his contention that Leon’s firm had been approaching DA ministers to arrange meetings and pursue policy changes on behalf of private clients. Gasp!

Steenhuisen said Resolve, which he believes helped to drive a public campaign against him over his handling of foot-and-mouth disease, had been approaching him to meet its clients.

He added that DA Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies Solly Malatsi was also contacted to meet with Resolve’s clients about Starlink.

In addition to denying wrongdoing and threatening legal action, Leon said in his statement that when Resolve was denied meeting requests, it accepted these decisions without complaint.

Leon also questioned the timing of the allegations. “I am not naive about why this is happening,” he said. “These allegations have surfaced in the midst of political contests in which Resolve plays no part.”

“We have become a convenient external explanation for difficulties that are, in truth, internal and political,” he said.

Leon said similar allegations had been made in 2019 when the DA was in a separate internal party dispute.

Kuningi!

Leon may well be right that the timing of these claims seems a bit off. Steenhuisen, for his part, has effectively exposed the factionalism within the party that many journos and analysts have long known exists. The bigger question is this: Did Resolve or Leon actually do anything wrong?

Corruption Watch spokesperson Janine Erasmus told /explain/ that lobbying, when done legally, is actually an important part of democracy. As citizens, we have the right to lawfully influence the decisions of all three tiers of our government – particularly decisions that affect us directly.

“This is done through public participation in the decision-making processes, such as public consultation or opportunities to make submissions, or having someone lobby for those needs on our behalf,” Erasmus said. “This is a constitutionally guaranteed right.”

But when does legal influence become corruption?

Erasmus said the difference between legal influence and corruption is that legal influence represents or brings matters of public interest before the state and is conducted in a transparent and accountable manner.

In contrast, “the unethical or corruption-related type, is done for the purpose of gaining undue benefit for the person and/or their associates,” Erasmus said. “This type of conduct does not consider the public interest and tends to harm the state and its residents.”

Speaking specifically about the Leon saga, Erasmus said she knows only the information that has been publicly presented but that, at face value, “it does look like it could be a matter of lobbying for personal enrichment”.

She added that if PR companies approaching the government for consultations and agreements become the norm, then they must be conducted in public view.

“It needs to be transparent,” she emphasised. “We would need regulations so that they have no option but to do it transparently.”

Political analyst Professor Richard Calland told /explain/ that the issue is likely to be referred to as Leon Gate from now on. He added that it won’t be disappearing any time soon, because it raises important questions about how democracy should handle lobbying.

“The question is, at what point does it become corrupt? And, how do you create regulations to avoid that?” Calland said, echoing Erasmus’s earlier point.

Calland suggested quarterly disclosures of lobbying activities from both the lobbyist and the person being lobbied, so the public can see which discussions are taking place and who is seeking to influence whom.

He warned that regulation in the lobbying space would not be an easy fix, as evidence in the United States has shown.

“In the end, issues of personal ethics, leadership, and governance determine whether or not lobbying passes over the line and becomes an exercise of undue influence over people with power and authority,” Calland said.

Whether Leon has used his connections for his own benefit or for the benefit of the company he chairs remains unclear. However, what is clear is that infighting is becoming an increasingly significant problem for the DA – a criticism it has often levelled at the ANC.

This was Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse chief executive Wayne Duvenage’s biggest takeaway.

Duvenage told /explain/ that, for now, the hypocrisy of the situation is apparent. He added that the DA should investigate the matter to ensure that nothing underhanded was done.

DA spokesperson Jan de Villiers, responding to questions from /explain/, said there has been no evidence that any DA public representative acted improperly or that any party process or public office was used to advance private commercial interests.

De Villiers added: “The DA does not comment on hypothetical disciplinary questions based on unsubstantiated claims, but should credible evidence of wrongdoing ever be presented, the party has established processes to deal with such matters.”

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.