PRETORIA, South Africa — The recent South Africa cabinet reshuffle has triggered intense political and constitutional scrutiny, primarily because the Democratic Alliance (DA) appears to have driven the executive changes. According to political analyst Professor Bheki Mngomezulu, it is highly unprecedented for a coalition partner that does not lead the government to dictate ministerial appointments, a power strictly reserved for the presidency.
A Constitutional Anomaly in the GNU
While the African National Congress (ANC) holds the parliamentary majority and President Cyril Ramaphosa sits at the helm of the Government of National Unity—despite the party not securing an outright victory in the 2024 elections—the DA is effectively calling the shots. Mngomezulu points out that under normal democratic circumstances, a non-leading party cannot initiate a cabinet reshuffle.
He highlights specific constitutional frameworks that vest this authority solely in the executive: Section 84(e) grants the president the right to appoint officers, Section 91 specifically covers the appointment of ministers, and Section 93 details the appointment of deputy ministers.
In this latest executive adjustment, Mngomezulu observes that the only appointment genuinely initiated by the President was the reinstatement of Dina Pule. The DA’s internal changes, however, were spearheaded by party leader Geordin Hill-Lewis, who formally submitted a list of names to the presidency. By doing so, Hill-Lewis effectively orchestrated a cabinet reshuffle. Following the announcements, Hill-Lewis stated his expectation that these new executive appointments would elevate government standards and deliver practical progress.
Numerically, the DA’s footprint remains identical: the party retains six ministerial and six deputy ministerial portfolios. However, Mngomezulu argues that the political weight of the DA has expanded significantly. By successfully dictating the terms of the reshuffle, the party has cemented its image as the most dominant force within the coalition.
The Dina Pule Controversy
While the DA managed its own internal movements, President Ramaphosa’s decision to bring Dina Pule back into the cabinet has drawn heavy criticism. Pule was famously dismissed from her role as Minister of Communications in 2013 by then-President Jacob Zuma, who cited unethical conduct. At the time, the Public Protector determined that while Pule did not steal state funds, her conduct was deemed improper—a conclusion echoed by the parliamentary committee investigating the matter.
Mngomezulu expressed deep reservations about Pule’s return to the executive after a 13-year absence. He recalled that during her previous tenure, she was ordered to apologize to Parliament for lying on multiple occasions, and was subsequently suspended, fined, and formally reprimanded.
The analyst questioned whether Pule has undergone any genuine political rehabilitation since her departure from the cabinet. He criticized the broader political trend of “recycling” underperforming officials by simply moving them to different ministries. Mngomezulu posed a critical question regarding the ANC’s roster: if the goal was to replace a female minister with another, why could the ANC or the ANC Women’s League not find a candidate in good standing? He warned that such decisions send a troubling message to the electorate regarding the party’s commitment to correcting past wrongs, even as he acknowledged that Ramaphosa is operating strictly within his constitutional rights.
John Steenhuisen’s Demotion and DA Internal Dynamics
The reshuffle also shed light on internal friction within the DA, most notably the demotion of John Steenhuisen from Agriculture Minister to a deputy ministerial role.
Mngomezulu noted that when Hill-Lewis assumed leadership, he publicly promised both the DA and the broader public that he would maintain the status quo. However, he later broke that promise by writing to the President to request Steenhuisen’s removal from the agriculture portfolio.
Steenhuisen’s time as Agriculture Minister was heavily scrutinized over his handling of the foot-and-mouth disease crisis. While he was credited with proactively importing vaccine doses into the country, his approach alienated commercial farmers. The farmers took legal action, arguing they had the capacity to procure their own vaccines and that the minister was unlawfully blocking them. The courts ultimately ruled against Steenhuisen.
Expressing sympathy for the KwaZulu-Natal-born politician, Mngomezulu questioned the true motive behind the demotion. He asked whether Steenhuisen is being sidelined simply to appease unhappy farmers, or if the party has deemed him ineffective in his role. These are pressing questions that Hill-Lewis, who positioned himself as a peacemaker, will ultimately need to address as the new government settles into its mandate.