CAPE TOWN, Western Cape — A high-stakes legal battle over the employment of Parliament Secretary Xolile George has drawn sharp criticism from Cameron Dugmore, acting co-chairperson of the Joint Standing Committee on the Financial Management of Parliament. Dugmore firmly defends George’s appointment and the associated 70% salary increase, dismissing the ongoing DA court challenge as a politically motivated maneuver that deliberately ignores established legislative oversight mechanisms.
The Democratic Alliance has approached the Western Cape High Court to have George’s appointment declared unlawful and invalid. The opposition party is requesting that any declaration of invalidity be temporarily suspended, granting Parliament a window to lawfully appoint a new secretary. During this interim period, the DA insists George should only receive the originally advertised salary of 2.6 million rand. Should the court refuse to set aside the appointment, the DA is alternatively seeking a judicial review to cap his remuneration at that initial 2.6 million rand figure. At the core of the DA’s legal argument is the claim that the previous Speaker and National Council of Provinces (NCOP) chairperson misled Members of Parliament into approving the appointment under the guise of a lower salary bracket.
Pushing back against these assertions, Dugmore clarified that the seventh parliament inherited this as a legacy issue from the previous administration. During a detailed March 4th committee review, it was established that while the role was advertised at a specific tier, a parallel job evaluation was always the intended protocol. Given that the Secretary to Parliament functions as a key official—comparable to a Director-General overseeing both the National Assembly and the NCOP—a formal evaluation was deemed necessary before finalizing compensation.
Dugmore emphasized that a comprehensive benchmarking exercise was executed by the private firm 21st Century Pay Solutions and independently validated by SNG Grant Thornton. He confirmed that the full report is accessible within the committee’s documentation, dismantling conspiracy theories by noting the firm has a historical track record of conducting work for Parliament and was not uniquely selected to favor this specific outcome.
Crucially, Dugmore highlighted that the Auditor General thoroughly audited the entire hiring and remuneration process, finding no irregularities. A formal letter detailing these clean findings was distributed to the DA and all other political parties. Based on this authoritative evidence, the committee—where Dugmore serves as acting co-chair while the primary co-chair attends to ADOC committee duties—officially accepted the findings and closed the matter.
Dugmore did not mince words regarding the DA’s underlying motives, labeling the litigation as opportunistic and potentially timed to generate publicity ahead of local elections. He pointed to stark hypocrisy, noting that the DA-appointed municipal manager in the City of Cape Town earns 4.7 million rand. Furthermore, Dugmore alleged that a subtle element of racism is driving the DA’s aggressive stance, arguing that the party is launching serious personal attacks to undermine a black Secretary to Parliament simply because they are unwilling to accept a black official commanding that level of compensation. He contextualized this behavior by referencing historical DA controversies, including the Tony Leon era and alleged attempts to capture the Department of Communications.
Expanding on his critique of the DA’s legal consistency, Dugmore cited the party’s recent efforts to challenge a high court ruling that granted the president a temporary pause—not a complete halt—on an impeachment process. He also pointed to ongoing local governance controversies, such as land sales in Cape Town, as evidence that the DA is losing public support and faces the prospect of losing control of the city.
Despite his firm belief that the DA’s case is fundamentally flawed given the Auditor General’s clearance and the documented benchmarking data, Dugmore concluded by affirming his respect for the separation of powers. He acknowledged that the judiciary will ultimately review the evidence and have the final say on the matter.
