Following the dismissal of Trade, Industry and Competition deputy minister Andrew Whitfield, President Cyril Ramaphosa says there are no reasonable grounds for Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen and his party to issue ultimatums and threats when he exercises his constitutional prerogative and responsibility.
Ramaphosa dismissed Whitfield on Wednesday, 25 June.
RAMAPHOSA EXPLAINS WHY ANDREW WHITFIELD WAS FIRED
Following outrage from the DA, Ramaphosa has since clarified that it is not common practice for the President of the Republic of South Africa to provide reasons either for the appointment or dismissal of Members of the Executive.
He said this was due to several unfortunate statements and outright distortions by several people, especially Steenhuisen and Whitfield.
“Mr Whitfield was removed as a Deputy Minister because he undertook an international visit without the permission of the President. His travel to the United States was a clear violation of the rules and established practices governing the conduct of Members of the Executive. This requirement is known to all Ministers and Deputy Ministers. These rules and established practices were expressly communicated to all members of the Executive during the induction sessions at the commencement of the seventh administration.
“These rules and practices were repeated in Cabinet in March this year by me as President. All international travel by members of the executive must always be undertaken with the express permission of the President. This practice is rigorously observed and adhered to by all members of the Executive. However, Mr Whitfield deliberately chose to violate this rule and practice,” Ramaphosa said.
‘HE HAD BEEN EXPECTING THAT HE MAY BE DISMISSED’
Further, Ramaphosa said before Whitfield’s removal, he informed Steenhuisen, as the leader of the DA, that he had decided to remove Whitfield from his position and that he expected Steenhuisen to present to me for approval a replacement from his party, as the DA is entitled to a deputy minister.
“In that discussion, Mr Steenhuisen informed me that Mr Whitfield had been expecting that he might be dismissed because he had undertaken an international trip without the President’s permission.
“This expectation, along with a perfunctory letter of apology that Mr Whitfield wrote to me following his travel to the USA without the required permission, indicated that he was aware that his actions had violated the rules and established practices governing the conduct of Members of the Executive,” he explained.
NOT THE FIRST TIME
Moreover, Ramaphosa also revealed that during his discussion with Steenhuisen, he asked him if there was precedent for the action that he intended to take concerning Whitfield.
“I informed him that there was indeed prior precedent. I told him that in 1995, President Nelson Mandela dismissed the late Deputy Minister Madikizela-Mandela and that in 2007, President Thabo Mbeki dismissed then Deputy Minister Nosizwe Madlala-Routledge on the grounds of undertaking international travel without permission.
“Given all these circumstances there is consequently no reasonable grounds for Mr Steenhuisen and the Democratic Alliance to issue ultimatums and threats when the President exercises his constitutional prerogative and responsibility. Nor are there any grounds to try link this with matters that have no bearing on the conduct of the former Deputy Minister.
“There is really no basis for suggestions that the dismissal of the former Deputy Minister is related to any other reason than his failure to receive permission to travel and adhere to the rules and established practices expected of members of the Executive of the Republic of South Africa.”
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE LATEST DEVELOPMENT IN THE AXING OF ANDREW WHITFIELD?
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1.
Subscribe to The South African website’s newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X, and Bluesky for the latest news.
