By Nco Dube | 26 June 2025

The recent decision by President Cyril Ramaphosa to relieve DA Deputy Minister Andrew Whitfield of his duties has sparked a flurry of speculation and debate in South African political circles. This move, while constitutionally within the President’s prerogative as outlined in Section 93(1), has raised questions about the balance of power, the role of coalition agreements, and the transparency expected from the executive branch.

The President’s authority to hire and fire Cabinet Ministers and their deputies is a cornerstone of the South African constitution. This power is intended to ensure that the President can effectively lead the government and implement his vision without undue interference from other political entities. However, the absence of reasons provided by President Ramaphosa for Whitfield’s dismissal has led to calls for transparency, echoing a 2017 ruling by Justice Bashir Vally of the North Gauteng High Court. In that case, the court mandated that then President Jacob Zuma provide reasons for firing Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan and his Deputy, Mcebisi Jonas.

This precedent sets a complex legal and political landscape. While the President’s decision-making power is constitutionally protected, the demand for reasons behind such decisions reflects a broader societal expectation for accountability and transparency in governance. The DA, in its urgent meeting following Whitfield’s dismissal, may leverage this expectation to pressure the President into revealing his motives, potentially leading to a public relations challenge for the Ramaphosa administration.

Critics of Justice Vally’s ruling argue that it undermines the President’s constitutional prerogative, suggesting that such decisions should remain within the executive’s discretion. However, the ruling was widely supported in 2017, including by many within the ANC itself who now align with the dominant faction of the ANC supporting President Ramaphosa. This inconsistency highlights the political dynamics at play and the potential for judicial decisions to be influenced by broader political contexts.

Speculation about the reasons for Whitfield’s dismissal has centred on two main narratives. The first involves allegations of insubordination, specifically Whitfield’s decision to join a DA delegation to the United States against the President’s advice. This incident occurred earlier in the year, yet no immediate action was taken, raising doubts about its significance as a reason for his dismissal.

The second narrative suggests a more politically charged motive: the desire to distance Whitfield from the controversial decision to appoint Sizekhaya Holdings as the fourth lotto operator. This decision has been criticised for its political connections and perceived lack of transparency, and some speculate that Whitfield’s removal may be linked to efforts to prevent further close scrutiny of this issue.

The lack of clarity surrounding Whitfield’s dismissal has fueled skepticism and calls for a thorough investigation into the true reasons behind the decision. The President’s obligation to provide reasons, as established by the 2017 ruling, may compel him to address these concerns and offer a transparent account of his actions.

The President’s inability to take decisive action against certain Cabinet ministers from his party, who are entangled in significant controversies, corruption allegations, and incompetence, is a critical issue that undermines the integrity and effectiveness of the government. 

This inaction not only erodes public trust but also sets a precedent that could lead to further corruption and mismanagement within the administration. Thembi Simelane, for instance, is facing serious allegations linked to the VBS Bank scandal, which has been a major financial disaster, and is also implicated in fraud allegations related to Vitrovian and Eskom. 

Similarly, Dr. Nobuhle Nkabane is embroiled in the SETA chairpersons’ scandal, which has raised questions about governance and accountability in the higher education sector. 

These controversies highlight the urgent need for the President to demonstrate even-handed leadership by addressing these issues head-on, ensuring that those responsible are held accountable, and restoring confidence in the government’s ability to govern transparently and effectively. 

This failure to act not only affects the immediate political landscape but also has long-term implications for the country’s economic stability and social cohesion, as it signals a lack of commitment to the principles of good governance and anti-corruption efforts that are essential for national development.

In conclusion, the dismissal of DA Deputy Minister Andrew Whitfield underscores the complexities of South African politics and the ongoing debate over the balance of power, transparency, and accountability. 

While the President’s constitutional authority to make such decisions is clear, the expectation for transparency and the potential for political motives to influence these decisions highlight the challenges facing the executive branch. As the DA and other stakeholders continue to scrutinise the President’s actions, the outcome of this situation will have significant implications for the future of governance in South Africa.

(Dube is a Political Economist, Businessman, and Social Commentator on UkhoziFM and various newspapers. Read more of his articles here: www. ncodube.blog)